Wednesday, April 15, 2009


I'm Warning You-- POLITICS.

Okay, you're sufficiently warned. This is a political post. See? I am warning you YET AGAIN.

Today across the nation in every congressional district Tea Parties were held! TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already", and the events were planned protests against high taxes, high spending, and government bailouts for private corporations.

I have to admit now that I didn't attend, but I did sign a petition supporting them despite the fact that they were sponsored in part by the Big Bad Republicans. I'd like to point out as well that the Libertarian Party (Smaller Government, More Taxes, More Freedom) also had a big push for the Tea Parties.

I have to say, lower taxes sound great, but you can't call for them unless you really understand what you're getting into. It means spending cuts--drastic ones. It means a return to a time before FDR, before the New Deal, and before the Federal Government funded practically every single State program, if only in part. (Let's face it, though, even though the New Deal helped us a little bit during the Great Depression, it was really World War II that pulled us out. Without the entire country of Germany going insane, the New Deal wouldn't have been able to end the Great Depression all by itself.
Spending cuts on the order I'm talking about would mean drastic change to the country-- and, in the end, they probably wouldn't result in a lower overall tax rate. And why not? Because States, faced with a reduced Federal allowance, will have to raise taxes in order to compensate.
And I say that that's okay. Because money out of your pocket would be going to schools in your neighborhood, to parks down the street, to hospitals and roads and services that you actually use. Instead of, say, 100 million here and 4.5 million there going to build roads and bridges and schools in places you've never been. Let's face it-- the federal budget process is out of control. In order to pass a budget (and, indeed, most bills), deals have to be made. Negotiations, compromises. Sometimes it means cutting a federal program here, adding to a federal program there. But a lot of the time it means pork. It means millions (let's be honest-- billions) of dollars being spent on local projects that will get congressmen votes. Projects that may or may not actually benefit the people of whatever district that elected the congressman.
I have a lot more to say, but I'll leave it at this and try to leave you with something simple, something easy to take away, something everyone should be able to get behind.
Let's take the money away from a Congress that bickers and hedges and eats pork by the barrelful and put it back into the hands of the people and the states-- where it can actually do some good.


  1. If we really wanted lower taxes, which I don't really care about as long as I don't have to shell out more on April 15th, then states may follow suit and cut state spending programs. All in all, that could mean the end to social security, Medicare, Medicaid, veteran benefits, limit the ability of the government to regulate drugs, banks, and industry and cut some incentives for us to live better or do the right thing, such as charitable donations.

    Also, not all pork-barrel spending is bad, it's just an earmark. I bet you earmark your own budget, so much for rent, this much for electricity, but it's the really outragous ones, such as 'this much for nude trapezee classes' that makes "pork" seem so bad.

  2. You have to understand, I'm not advocating an END to all income taxes. I'm advocating that the Federal Government stop spending money on things that they have only vague permission to do under the Constitution. Leave those things to the states, and lower the federal income tax rate to reflect the reduced spending. Things like benefits for the men and women who fight to keep our country safe seem pretty high up on the list of things that the federal government should be involved in. And as for social security, well... it's going to be out of money soon anyway, so perhaps it's time to come up with something that works better.

    As for pork, most of them are projects that the national government shouldn't be funding. Furthermore, congressmen and senators like to hold up bills and refuse to sign on unless they get their piece of the pie. That's not governing, and it's not earmarks-- it's using citizens' tax money to score a free campaign ad for their district.