BREAKING NEWS - Citizens DO NOT Voluntarily Tax Themselves

A few months ago, I wrote about how folks who wanted to raise taxes could voluntarily do so at any time. All that they needed to do was to write a check and mail it to the government.

Learned that there are a couple of states that actually tried setting up funds for such activities, and one of them is Virginia. Who knew? (Another, by the way, was set up by a gentleman named Huckabee when he was governor of one of those middle states... Arkansas, I think.)

The good news is that the concept of voluntary taxation has REALLY taken off.

How much money has been raised? Will taxes be eliminated due to the generosity of those wonderful taxpayers who put their money where their mouth was?

Um...

No.

Not likely.

Virginia's fund has raised $10,217.04 (can't forget the four cents!) since it's inception in 2002. For those who attended government schools, that's $1459.58 per annum. You could multiply that one hundred times and STILL not come close to a penny contributed per citizen.

So, what happens to everyone who's in a hurry to raise taxes? One would suspect that the states' revenue collection departments would be hiring extra staff to handle the deluge of mail containing all the checks pouring in.

Nope.

So, next time someone supports raising taxes - ask them how much they contributed above the minimum required by the tax form. And treasure the look on their face that you'll see. Spending other people's money is fun; sending in extra taxes instead of buying yourself something special... not so much.

Oh, and for a continued public service - if you'd like to contribute to the federal budget:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Ron Paul

Ron Paul. IF someone recognizes the name, they tend to fall into one of two camps - those who see him as the Second Coming or those who see him as the Republican answer to Dennis Kucinich.

For the most part... I agree with Ron Paul. He sums up many of my Libertarian leanings. I also notice how easy it is to demagogue him, primarily (no pun intended) due to his views on the Iraq Theater - of which I disagree with him.

In order to expose him a bit to my loyal (and rare) readership, I thought I'd include some of the interviews Mr. Paul recently had with John Stossel (another Libertarian of whom I'm fond).

Ron Paul Interview with John Stossel

And then there's this:

My Interview with Ron Paul

By John Stossel

Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to interview Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, so I did.

It's refreshing to interview a politician who doesn't mince words. It's even more refreshing to interview one who understands the benefits of limited government.

Here, then, is the first in a series of columns on my talk with Ron Paul. Some of Paul's answers are shortened.

What should government do?

Ron Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?

That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.

The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?

Yes. We don't need it.

How will people get educated?

We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.

The federal government should have no role?

There's no authority for it, and . they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.

The Department of Energy.

We don't need a Department of Energy. It serves the interests of big business.

Other cabinet departments? Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development. You'd get rid of all of them?

Yeah. Of course, that's not on the immediate agenda, but they're unnecessary, and we should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments, and I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they're supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened.

The Commerce Department? We don't need the Commerce Department to have commerce?

No, absolutely not.

Homeland Security. Isn't that a role for the federal government?

Not really, not the way that's designed. That's the biggest bureaucracy of them all. There are some parts that are OK. You know, they put the Coast Guard in there, and they put FEMA in there, and everybody's bunched together. And I think it was failure of government on 9/11, not the fact that we didn't have the Department of Homeland Security and . a national ID card, and this constant surveillance and loss of our privacy.

Failure of government how?

We spent $40 billion on intelligence gathering, and it didn't prevent (the 9/11 attacks) from happening. But the government was in charge of the airlines. FAA, they were supposed to inspect the people as they went on, and you weren't supposed to resist any takeovers, and (passengers and pilots) weren't allowed to have a gun. Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, "Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun." So 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?

That basically it. Most of the time well-intentioned -- but good intentions will not solve our problems.

And...

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate saying we should get our troops out of Iraq -- now. Here's more of my edited interview with the congressman.

Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.

Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.

s this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.

I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.

Many say the surge in Iraq is succeeding, that we're at a turning point now, and we are creating a model of democracy in a part of the world that hasn't seen that.

That's the propaganda. I don't happen to believe that.

And if in most of Iraq, some religious fanatic comes to power and has money to buy nuclear weapons, we should just leave him alone?

The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves.

You say we shouldn't be the world's policemen. Isn't it our responsibility to help others?

It's OK for us to personally help other people. But to go around the world and spread democracy -- goodness, no -- too many unintended consequences. It usually requires force. I think we should only do those things under the prescribed conditions of the Constitution.

Is war ever justifiable?

Sure. If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

So in World War II, we were justified?

Sure.

How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?

I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

The Korean War?

Totally unjustified.

Kosovo?

Absolutely unjustified.

Vietnam?

A horror.

The first Iraq war? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He might have invaded the next country, and the next.

I bet Israel would have done something about it, and I bet Saudi Arabia maybe would have talked to Israel. I think if it would have been left to the region, they might have taken care of Saddam Hussein in 1990 and we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

What if there's genocide and terrible suffering in a country?

It's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people. Our job is to make us a better people.

You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?

I would. Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.

That's a role for the federal government?

Oh, sure.

Moving along...

U.S. congressional representative and Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been called "Dr. No" because he repeatedly votes against legislation he believes gives government too much power. If it's not in the Constitution, he says, the federal government has no business doing it. He even votes against appropriations to his constituents. Here's Part 3 of my edited interview with Rep. Paul.

Your district is subject to floods, but you vote against FEMA. Why?

Ron Paul: Because I think FEMA helps create the flood problems. (Without subsidies,) if it's risky on the Gulf Coast to build there, the insurance prices will go up. If (they're) too high, nobody will build there, or they'll build there with full risk. Flood comes, wind blows your house away, you don't get reimbursed. So there might be (only) modest building in those areas. But if the government subsidizes the insurance, saying, "If you build there, don't sweat it, we're going to bail you out," more people move into the flood-prone areas. Then who are the people that have to bail you out? Somebody that lives out in the desert. It's unfair, it's not good economics. You create more problems, more houses get flooded, and it becomes a general problem rather than an individual problem. We have undermined is the principle of measuring risk. Then people do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done.

You also say, "no farm subsidies."

No, I can't quite find (the farm-subsidy program) in the Constitution.

Don't we need farm subsidies to make sure we have food?

It is totally unnecessary. I think (subsidies) push the prices of food up, and maybe (that) makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food. If there's a subsidy, it means the taxpayer was taxed to pay a huge corporate farmer. So it hasn't helped the people. And why should we assume that the farmers wouldn't be productive? They're hard working people. I never voted for farm subsidies, and I represent a farm district.

They forgive you for that?

The farmers will support me, but not the (farm lobby) organizations.

Most crops don't have subsidies. Yet we have plenty of (unsubsidized) peaches and plums.

When I go to the grocery store, I always marvel: Isn't it wonderful how we can see so much fresh produce there, and the prices aren't regulated? It was a fallacious argument back in the '30s that the Depression came from free markets and therefore we had to have a safety net. We gave up on believing in freedom and understanding how the market works.

You talk about freedom and tyranny. I seldom hear politicians use those words.

Those are our only two choices. We've had a grand experiment in this country, where we emphasize freedom. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty, to restrain the government. But we have forgotten that. Now we have an interpretation that means that we spy on the American people, encroach on their privacy, take care of them, run the "nanny state" -- and then we have secrecy in government. So we have it reversed. People say, "Ron, you want to go back to the dark ages of this strict interpretation of the Constitution." Well, I want to go back to the Constitution, but I don't consider it the dark ages. I think the dark ages the days were when all you had was tyranny. Freedom is new. Tyranny is old.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are enough? We don't need 55,000 pages of tax code?

Isn't that fantastic? Truth is simple. The more complex (government) is, the more leery we ought to be of what they're doing. When they say we have to solve the problems of 9/11 (by passing) the Patriot Act, that's complex. Four hundred pages, and they dump it on us an hour before we vote. You can read the Constitution and understand it, but you cannot read and understand hardly any of the legislation being passed.

And lastly...

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up.

So get rid of all those programs? Every one?

I would. Get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution.

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

So, these are some of his views. Something to think about. For more, please go to his Website. Remember, when it's your turn to vote, educate yourself... and vote for whom you believe in. It's the only way to make your beliefs truly known.

(Many thanks to the transcripts from Real Clear Politics.)

Thoughts on Warren Buffett

On my other blog, I posted a quote by Warren Buffett, the ultra-rich uber-billionaire.

Recently, he testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He asked them not to eliminate the estate tax, saying, "I think we need to ... take a little more out of the hides of guys like me."

Mr. Buffett, may I make a suggestion? If you feel you have too much money, you could certainly help your country by writing a check (feel free to throw in a few extra zeroes) and mail it to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

The government requests you write "Gift to Reduce the Debt Held By the Public" in the memo space.

And since you don't think you pay enough, feel free to put extra stamps on the envelope, too.

But to arrogantly suggest how the government should tax those who make far less than you... well, that's spending other people's money. Speak for yourself. Write a check. It'll increase your credibility score.

My Thoughts on a Few Issues

Tis the season for politics. So, why not share where I stand on a few points of interest?

I classify myself as Libertarian, but I refuse to join the Libertarian Party. Why not? Because, they refuse to support the effort to stop the Islamofascists, at least, not until they come directly to our shores.

Taxes

I am a supporter of the FairTax. Do you realize that the budge allocation in the 2008 Budget Proposal for the Internal Revenue Service is over eleven billion dollars!? That means that the service that manages our ever convoluted tax code has to take in eleven billion dollars before a single penny goes to any other part of the government... like the Army, or roads, the CDC, or what have you... That's INSANE. Take a look at the FairTax... and study it. It's a very valid proposal, and for starters, we can save approximately eleven billion dollars.

Amendment X

I'm a strong believer in the Constitution. It's the roadmap to our government and our country, and I'm willing to bet that most people are only sketchilly familiar with it. Are you? Take a look here for the whole thing.
Amendment X is a special one though. It's designed to limit the role of the Federal government. We all hear about the government being too big, having grown larger, or the famous quote, "The era of Big Government is over." Candidates campaign on the issue all the time. But, did you know that the Bill of Rights already has taken care of the issue... if we merely held our government to the fire? Amendment X reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
How about that? It limits the powers and growth of the government right there. Let's get back to that, shall we?

Term Limits

Unnecessary. What we should be asking for are informed voters with spines. Every two years, we as Americans are given the opportunity to completely replace the ENTIRE House of Representatives and a third of the United States Senate. Term limits are offered right there. Don't like your representative? Vote him/her out. Instant term limits.

War

Not the Iraqi theater or the Global War (World War IV, as some call it). No, war in general. The last time our country declared war was World War II. Since then, we've committed our forces numerous times (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Desert Storm, OEF, OIF, Cambodia, Laos, and that's just the Top 10). All without a declaration of war.

It seems such a triviality, but... declaring war shows a level of committment. That the Country is formally determined to defeat an enemy. Why don't we do this anymore? We declare war on poverty, hunger, AIDS, drugs, crime, what have you... but actually declare a military war? Nah, no guts for that.

Education

Abolish the Department of Education. $58 billion. And we're still slipping... Return control of schools to the local communities. Who better to know how to teach the local kidlets? The local parents. That's where the funding comes from... and the kids... and the values. Imagine the drive to ensure your community has good schools if it's truly up to the community.

Drugs

Legalize them. Yep, I know, lost a lot of folks right there. We've been told how evil drugs are. And, in truth, they do some nasty things to people. But, it's their choice. But, SCEagle, what about what an intoxicated person does? Well, do we not already HAVE laws? Person is high and drives their car and kills someone. We HAVE a law against killing someone. Vehicular homicide, for instance. Also DWI. But, if you want to sit in your home and get high... go for it. Prohibition didn't work... why do we expect a different result with a "war" on drugs? By the way, DEA = $1.8 billion.

Defense

We need to increase our spending here. Obviously, we have quite an enemy right now, and we are stretching our resources to the bone. Let's get serious about this, shall we? Nuff said.

Abortion

Personal opinions aside, why do we feel that one law can fit a nation of over 300 million people, of such diversity (hey, I've paid attention in my diversity classes) spread out over such a large area...? Each of our states is more in tune for the people in that area... If Rhode Island's populace votes for full abortion, then that's what they decide; and if New Mexico says no, then no there. Yes, it's a patchwork. But that's how it SHOULD be. Each state is different, each population different, and the laws should reflect those folks' wishes and intents.

Crime

There are way too many federal offenses. How often do we hear that a citizen was arrested on local charges, acquitted, and now the feds are pursuing the same charges, but on a federal level? Sure, there are crimes at the federal level - treason, for one. Kidnapping (across state lines) would be another. But this is ridiculous. Let's trim it back down. If it's a local crime, then leave it local.

Apologies

No, I'm not apologizing for something. It's done way too often. Every time someone ruffles someone else's feathers, there are vocal demands for an apology. And soon, a well-worded, carefully crafted apology is trotted out. We're even apologizing for actions by now dead people against other now dead people. Huh? An apology made by someone who was not at all responsible carries weight? Pah. Apologies are becoming worthless because they're so overused. Stop it! An apology is most sincere when it's offered, not when it's demanded.

Health Care

We're serious? We're actually saying that because our own health care is not a priority to us, we expect the whole country to take care of it? Because the government has shown such success with every other public welfare priority.
And the idea that people don't have health care... pah. First, anyone can go to the emergency room for an emergency. Also, for the poor, truly poor, we have MedicAid. For seniors, MediCare...

For the rest of us... health care is like anything else. I'd like a bigger house. Should the country buy it for me? No. I'd like a nicer car? Same question. Now, for me personally, health care is free. And folks, let me assure you, while it's nice to not pay anything, the bureaucracy and quality can be nightmarish. We DO NOT WANT THIS nationwide. Don't believe me? Enlist... try it out. We either make health care a priority in our lives or not. We buy the health care that we can afford and that we feel is appropriate. That's how it should be.

Immigration

What we're really discussing is Illegal Immigration. It's illegal. Thus, the name. So, what's the question?

These are just a few of my thoughts and positions... more to come later.

Pointless Maneuvering

I would be negligent if I didn't comment (again) on the Iraq Supplemental vote.

Both the House and the Senate have now passed, albeit just barely, their own versions of the bill. Two notable qualities of the bills - they both set a deadline for our surrender and they fund more than the military needs, although Popeye does love his spinach.

What stood out today was the Honorable Rep. Pelosi's comments to the President (side-note: some of you may notice that one of the features of my posts is that I will ALWAYS use respect to those in their various positions, personal feelings aside. I feel it's lacking in today's discourse, and that lack is hindering debate. Compare with other blogs - you know where...).

"On this very important matter, I would extend a hand of friendship to the president, just say to him, 'Calm down with the threats, there's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours.' This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of the war. Let's see how we can work together."

"I just wish the president would take a deep breath, recognize again that we each have our constitutional role and we should respect that in terms of each other."

Oh really. She wants respect. And, she wants the Commander-in-Chief to respect Congress' Constitutional role (please, show me where, Madame Speaker) in restricting the military conduct of our military.

Respect.

Wow.

The Democrats are insisting on pursuing a piece of legislation that is doomed to a veto, and is not veto-proof. For what purpose?

Why is the Democrat leadership going to the mat for this?

The naive view would be that the House would do two bills, one to fund the military, and then one bill, perhaps a very short one, saying that the Congress is curtailing the Commander-in-Chief's authority to deploy troops to Iraq. That way, the troops get their funding (see: "We Support the Troops") AND they get a very clean, no manipulation, vote.

But, that's not happening here. There's all kinds of bait, bribes, pork laden into this bill. If the principle were so clear, and from what I read in the MSM, and hear from the Democrats, there is a loud hue and cry from the American people demanding the Democrats take action (and to think, it's almost April... I'm glad it's something important.)

So, with 18 days remaining before the military starts running out of funds, according to a projection by the Defense chiefs... the money is tied up in political game-playing.

And Rep. Pelosi wants respect.

Madame Speaker, will that respect come when the military must begin curtailing training flying hours for its pilots? Or, will it be when deploying units can't practice live fire ranges because there's an ammunition shortage, and the troops downrange need the bullets? Maybe we'll respect you more when the fitness centers, family centers, Yellow Ribbon Rooms, and other MWR facilities are forced to reduce their hours due to lack of funds?

Speaker Pelosi does have a response to the concern about the military running out of money:

"The fact is the president of United States as the Commander-In-Chief has weakened our military. Why would he be saying to us we're running out of money when it's only a few weeks. Leadership would have required for him to have anticipated these needs."

'It's only a few weeks.' (For a Congress that historically has never been known for it's speed.) My favorite: 'Leadership would have required for him to have anticipated these needs.' Madame Speaker, earlier you were quoted referring to your Constitutional roles. In the quote, you mistakenly alluded to a role governing the military. Here, you again make a Constitutional mistake. You say the President had the Leadership responsibility to authorize the funding. How? In the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 1, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives...".

Madame Speaker, the President has no Constitutional role to introduce a spending bill in the US House. Exactly how would you have preferred he demonstrate the leadership you felt he lacked?



In short, today Congress failed the troops. They announced our willingness to surrender, or run away within a set period of time, to our enemy. They announced that the Congress no longer supports the mission. And, I'm sure that message was not lost upon the enemy - either our known enemy now, or future enemies we haven't met yet.

Finally, I'd like to share where some other folks have posted their views.

Tanker Brothers

The Iraq Vote

Today, as the Democrat leadership has long promised, the US House of Representatives held a vote on the continued funding of the Armed Forces during this war against Islamo-fascism.

No doubt, you've heard by now the result. You can see how your representative voted here.

Perhaps, you'd like to exercise a passing familiarity with the representing that your Representatives have been doing. You can read the entire bill.

I want to let you know that what happened today hurts the troops. It's surprising, but the military needs money. Lots of it. Soon. The bill today had a lot of that money in it (not all of it, mind you, but a good start.)

Let's take a step here, and remove ourselves from whether or not the House should have voted to give a deadline for withdrawal. There are plenty of columnists, talking heads, and bloggers like myself who will discuss that into the ground. Fact is, whichever way your opinion goes on that, no one is likely to budge it even a smidgen.

However, everyone - Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and excepting a few folks who've gotten carried away - says they "Support the Troops".

This bill, amongst other things (including the Minimum Wage, surprisingly enough), provided funding to Support the Troops. There are no other bills in the House that have that goal.

This bill is also loaded with enough items, whether it's non-related funding directives (aka "pork"), or the aforementioned mandated timetable for withdrawal, that it faces a guaranteed VETO from the President.

In other words, no money for the troops at all.

The Army has already indicated that it will need to extend tours, reduce training, and other cost-cutting measures will be implemented, to weather the funding shortfall.


The Democrat leadership tried to do it all. Tried to cover the wide base of their party, and ultimately, failed. Even members of their own party voted against the bill because they didn't like what was in it (or rather, what was missing - they wanted it to end the war now). Thus, they guaranteed not having enough votes to survive a VETO threat.


What should they have done? If they truly take America first, and Support the Troops? Politics aside? Propose, and quickly pass, a bill that is strictly military funding - what the troops asked for - and nothing else.

Separately, have the vote for the early withdrawal. You campaigned on it, so vote on it. But, don't tie plans for a withdrawal next year to money the troops need right now.


And, as long as we're talking about doing it right, lets not tie other things into a military appropriations bill that have nothing to do with the military. It's called Pork, and while it IS a time-honored tradition in Congress, we can always hope.

A friend sent this along to me:

What Democrats Could Have Funded:

Listed below are programs and equipment that could be purchased and delivered sooner than planned if they were funded in the Democratic War Supplemental for Fiscal year 2007.

• $4.75 billion: Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (USMC & Army)
• $2.6 billion: Aircraft Recapitalization and Modernization (Air Force)
• $1.84 billion: Medium Tactical Vehicles, such as 5-Ton Trucks (Army)
• $775.1 million: STRYKER Combat Vehicles and Armor Upgrades (Army)
• $452.2 million: Upgrade 3 Patriot Anti-Missile Battalions (Army)
• $324.2 million: Heavy Tactical Trucks, such as 10-Ton Tractor-Trailers (Army)
• $250 million: Force Protection Equipment (Air Force)
• $207.4 million: Aircraft/Helicopter Survivability Equipment (Army)
• $187.2 million: Javelin Portable Anti-Tank Missile (Army)
• $152.9 million: Counter-IED Systems (Army)
• $33 million: Night Vision Equipment (Army)
• $24 million: Combat Search and Rescue Capability Enhancement (Air Force)
• $10 million: Electronic Attack Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (USMC)
• $9 million: Joint IED Defeat Sustainment (Navy)

Additional Cuts:

• Combating Violent Militias. House Democrats strip $155.5 million from the military effort to disarm and demobilize violent militias. Since no alternative exists to combat violent militias, armed groups will be left to roam the streets of Baghdad and civil unrest will continue. This senseless funding cut would undermine the U.S. military effort in Iraq and endanger U.S. troops.

• Combatant Commander Initiative Fund. House Democrats cut $25 million from the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund, which will deny military commanders a valuable regional engagement tool for “building partner nation capacity” in the Global War on Terrorism.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency. House Democrats cut $350 million from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which would harm America’s ability to build foreign capacity to counter instability and security problems.

• Special Operations Command. House Democrats cut $14 million from the Special Operations Command, limiting one of the most engaged forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as one of the most effective forces outside of Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the Global War on Terrorism and regional stability.

• IED Counter-Measures. House Democrats cut $13.25 million for Warlock electronic jammers and $27.63 million for the Army’s Soldier Support and Survivability System.

• Helicopters. House Democrats cut $90 million for three additional CH-47 helicopter airframes, denying the Army three Chinook helicopters. House Democrats also cut $75 million for UH-60’s, denying the Army five Blackhawk helicopters.

• Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. House Democrats cut $31.5 million for unmanned aerial vehicles, which are vital force protection equipment and effective counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism tools.




What Democrats Chose to Fund Instead:

• Peanut Storage Subsidies: Provides $74 million to extend peanut storage payments through 2007. The Peanut Subsidy Storage program, which is set to expire this year, pays farmers for the storage, handling, and other costs for peanuts voluntarily placed in the marketing loan program.
• Spinach: Provides $25 million for payments to spinach producers that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the FDA Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006.
• Shrimp: Provides $120 million to the shrimp industry for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.
• Frozen Farmland: Provides $20 million for the cleanup and restoration of farmland damaged by freezing temperatures during a time period beginning on January 1, 2007 through the date of enactment.
• Hurricane Citrus Program: Provides $100 million to provide assistance to citrus producers (such as orange producers) in the area declared a disaster related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
• HUD Indian Housing: Provides $80 million in tenant-based rental assistance for public and Indian housing under HUD.
• Crop Disaster Assistance: Provides roughly $3 billion in agriculture assistance to crop producers and livestock owners experiencing losses in 2005, 2006, or 2007 due to bad weather.
• Payment to Widow of Rep. Norwood: Provides $165,200 to Gloria W. Norwood, the widow of former Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), an RSC Member, who passed away last month. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), Congress provided $162,100 to Doris Matsui, the widow of former Rep. Robert Matsui.
• Capitol Power Plant: Provides $50 million to the Capitol Power Plant for asbestos abatement and safety improvements.
• Liberia: Provides that money appropriated for FY 2007 for the Bilateral Economic Assistance program at the Department of Treasury may be used to assist Liberia in retiring its debt arrearages to the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the African Development Bank.
• Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program: Provides $283 million for payments under the MILC program, to extend the life of the program for one year, through September 30, 2008. MILC provides payments to dairy farmers when milk prices fall below a certain rate.
• Aquaculture Operations: Provides $5 million for payments to “aquaculture operations and other persons in the U.S. engaged in the business of breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish” (such as shellfish, oysters and clams) to cover economic losses incurred as a result of an emergency order issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on October 24, 2006.
• FDA Office of Women’s Health: Provides $4 million for the Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Provides $60.4 million for fishing communities, Indian tribes, individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses for assistance related to “the commercial fishery failure.” According to the Committee Report, this funding is to be used to provide disaster relief for those along the California and Oregon coast affected by the “2006 salmon fishery disaster in the Klamath River.”
• Avian Flu: Provides $969 million for the Department of HHS to continue to prepare and respond to an avian flu pandemic. Of this funding, $870 million is to be used for the development of vaccines.
• Secure Rural Schools Act (Forest County Payments): Provides $400 million to be used for one-time payments to be allocated to states under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This program provides a funding stream (known as forest county payments) to counties with large amounts of Bureau of Land Management land, in order to compensate for the loss of receipt-sharing payments on this land caused by decreased revenue from timber sales due to environmental protections for endangered species. The authorization for these forest county payments expired at the end of FY 2006, and counties received their last payment under the Act in December 2006.
• NASA: Provides $35 million to NASA, under the “exploration capabilities” account, for “expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.”
• Corps of Engineers: Provides $1.3 billion to Corps of Engineers for continued repairs on the levee system in New Orleans.
• FEMA: Provides $4.3 billion for disaster relief at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill would eliminate the state and local matching requirements for certain FEMA assistance (in connection with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis) in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, and provides that the federal portion of these costs will be 100%.
• LIHEAP: Provides $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
• Vaccine Compensation: Provides $50 million to compensate individuals for injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine, which is a flu vaccine.
• SCHIP: Provides $750 million to the Secretary of HHS to provide assistance to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) “shortfall states,”, in the form of an amount “as the Secretary determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall.” This provision is direct spending that is essentially capped at $750 million and designated as an emergency to avoid PAYGO constraints.
• Minimum Wage Increase: Increases the federal minimum wage from $5.15-per-hour to $7.25-per-hour over two-plus years—a 41% increase. Yields $16.5 billion in private-sector costs over five years.
• Tax Increases and Shifts: Implements several tax increases and shifts, including: denying the lowest maximum capital gains tax rate for certain minors and adults, extending the suspension of interest payments due to the IRS, and adjusting the deadlines for corporate estimated tax payments. Costs taxpayers $1.380 billion over the FY2007-FY2017 period.

Commentary on Taxes

I'd like to take credit for this, but... I found it while reading up on the blogs of a guy who was nice enough to leave a comment on my nascent blog.

It could be a long essay on taxation, or a rambling rant, but neither of those are much fun to read, are they?


However, this dandy post is a nice lil' journey through the myriad of words that we soak in every day.

He indicates that it came to him through an e-mail... Hat tip to whomever originally wrote it; I found it quite a joy to read.

Oh, and it may have provoked a thought or two.