When I glanced at my annoying morning paper today, I thought I had woken up in an alternate universe. There on the front page of the New York Times, of all places, was a news story that said governors from both parties have moved toward a consensus for the future [1]:
The prescription? Slash spending. Avoid tax increases. Tear up regulations that might drive away business and jobs. Shrink government, even if that means tackling the thorny issues of public employees and their pensions.
What? I know that’s absolutely true, and probably fair reporting on what most governors had said. But I never expected to see such fair coverage in the New York Times. I don’t know the writer, Monica Davey. Maybe she’s just an unusual Times reporter.
Or maybe -- this is my hope -- the need for smaller and simpler government has become so obvious that even the clueless liberals are starting to get it. Wouldn’t that be great?
The Times even chose to quote, without the usual sneer, the new Republican governor of South Dakota saying this about his predecessors and politicians in nearby states:
“They have promised their citizens something for nothing,” Mr. Daugaard said of other states during his inauguration in Pierre this month, “and created a society where everyone wants to be carried and no one wants to pull their own weight.”
Showing posts with label Fiscal Responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fiscal Responsibility. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Daugaard Catches A Little National Spotlight
John Stossel mentioned newly inaugurated Governor Dennis Daugaard on his blog, citing some of great points Dennis made regarding self-reliance.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Four Ways to Spend Money
Economist Milton Friedman (may he rest in peace), on the four ways to spend money:
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Constitutional Amendment.....Yes!
Finally! Some Republicans are starting to act like Republicans again!
A constitutional amendment requiring the national government to have a balanced budget each year (you know, PAY for what we spend), I feel, is the only way to ensure the longevity of our country. We cannot sustainably continue this philosophy of having our cake and eating it too.
Americans are not asked to sacrifice at all for the entitlements or actions of government when they can simply deficit spend, where the government gives us things, yet does not ask anybody to pay for it through taxation. Nobody pays attention to what government does, either, if it doesn't affect their pocketbook.
Even with this amendment, government may still just try to tax the hell out of the rich and minimally tax lower income earners to maintain this "taxation blindness" on the majority of the country, which is why I feel a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget with some form of a flat tax will ensure America is around for many years to come.
Republicans as well as Democrats are both guilty for their irresponsible spending practices, so this amendment will remind politicians that the rule that money doesn't grow on trees also applies to them. We don't want to end up like Greece.
From U.S. News & World Report:
A constitutional amendment requiring the national government to have a balanced budget each year (you know, PAY for what we spend), I feel, is the only way to ensure the longevity of our country. We cannot sustainably continue this philosophy of having our cake and eating it too.
Americans are not asked to sacrifice at all for the entitlements or actions of government when they can simply deficit spend, where the government gives us things, yet does not ask anybody to pay for it through taxation. Nobody pays attention to what government does, either, if it doesn't affect their pocketbook.
Even with this amendment, government may still just try to tax the hell out of the rich and minimally tax lower income earners to maintain this "taxation blindness" on the majority of the country, which is why I feel a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget with some form of a flat tax will ensure America is around for many years to come.
Republicans as well as Democrats are both guilty for their irresponsible spending practices, so this amendment will remind politicians that the rule that money doesn't grow on trees also applies to them. We don't want to end up like Greece.
From U.S. News & World Report:
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Hilarious Headline
I saw this headline, and couldn't help but laugh:
"Trimming the budget???" If by trim the budget you mean quadruple it first, then promise to cut it in half, then sure...
*From the Huron Daily Plainsman
"Trimming the budget???" If by trim the budget you mean quadruple it first, then promise to cut it in half, then sure...
*From the Huron Daily Plainsman
Monday, April 20, 2009
That's Some Scalpal, Mr. President
Politico.com reports that President Obama is ordering some whopping spending cuts within the national government. The article states that he has ordered $100 million worth of spending cuts.
Remember during the campaign he criticized McCain for wanting to "use an ax, when what we really need is a scalpel" when it comes to the size of government? I think a tweezers would be a more accurate description.
To put it in perspective, economist Greg Mankiw did some basic math in a recent article. With a $3.5 TRILLION proposed budget for 2010, a teeny-tiny cut of $100 million represents just .003 of the proposed budget. And the proposed deficit is projected to be $1.2 TRILLION. The proposed cut represents only .008 percent of the DEFICIT. We've got a ways to go to eliminate that deficit completely!
This is just a drop in the bucket if we're going to balance our national budget, but I do applaud any spending cuts a big spending liberal will give me.
But I sure could go with John McCain's big ax right now.
Remember during the campaign he criticized McCain for wanting to "use an ax, when what we really need is a scalpel" when it comes to the size of government? I think a tweezers would be a more accurate description.
To put it in perspective, economist Greg Mankiw did some basic math in a recent article. With a $3.5 TRILLION proposed budget for 2010, a teeny-tiny cut of $100 million represents just .003 of the proposed budget. And the proposed deficit is projected to be $1.2 TRILLION. The proposed cut represents only .008 percent of the DEFICIT. We've got a ways to go to eliminate that deficit completely!
This is just a drop in the bucket if we're going to balance our national budget, but I do applaud any spending cuts a big spending liberal will give me.
But I sure could go with John McCain's big ax right now.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Are You Serious Mamn?
Here's more Sioux Falls Tea Party coverage from KSFY.
By the way, Sandy Jerstad? You're a complete nutjob. Saying that we need to quadruple the national debt to get the country on stable economic ground in order to pay off the national debt accumulated over the past 8 years is like saying we need to eat a trillion Big Macs before we can go on a diet to lose 14 pounds. Why don't you go yell at a store clerk and tell them how important you are. Oh wait, you already did that...
She represents District 12, for all you South Dakota voters that live in that district! ;-)
By the way, Sandy Jerstad? You're a complete nutjob. Saying that we need to quadruple the national debt to get the country on stable economic ground in order to pay off the national debt accumulated over the past 8 years is like saying we need to eat a trillion Big Macs before we can go on a diet to lose 14 pounds. Why don't you go yell at a store clerk and tell them how important you are. Oh wait, you already did that...
She represents District 12, for all you South Dakota voters that live in that district! ;-)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
April 15th: The Democrats' Most Favorite Day of the Year
Today's tax day is unlike any in previous years past. This year, a citizen uprising over our current government's spending practices is happening all over the country, coming in the form of American Revolution-era Tea Parties.
Some out there are simply dismissing the nation-wide protest, saying that this is a far-right-wing political stunt motivated by Republican politicians trying to stir up trouble. No.... In fact, according to that Wall Street Journal article I linked to, the Chicago Tea Party declined a speaking opportunity offered by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. The tea parties are simply individual citizens organized through social networking that are fed up with our government.
In my mind, there is no reason this should be partisan. Democrats and Republicans alike criticized President Bush for his big government spending practices, and now President Obama is hosting Deficit Spending: Extreme Makeover.
The bottom line is this: deficit spending removes government accountability to the people. If a government is allowed to spend whatever it wants without paying for it with taxes, the people no longer have to supply the financial resources needed to fund government growth. When government no longer requires money from us to pay for its actions, less people care what the government does because it does not affect them financially. Thus, government is free to do whatever it pleases without limits and nobody cares.
And when that happens, as it is right now, the "limited government" that our founders believed so strongly in will be gone. That is why we're protesting. And you should be too.
Some out there are simply dismissing the nation-wide protest, saying that this is a far-right-wing political stunt motivated by Republican politicians trying to stir up trouble. No.... In fact, according to that Wall Street Journal article I linked to, the Chicago Tea Party declined a speaking opportunity offered by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. The tea parties are simply individual citizens organized through social networking that are fed up with our government.
In my mind, there is no reason this should be partisan. Democrats and Republicans alike criticized President Bush for his big government spending practices, and now President Obama is hosting Deficit Spending: Extreme Makeover.
The bottom line is this: deficit spending removes government accountability to the people. If a government is allowed to spend whatever it wants without paying for it with taxes, the people no longer have to supply the financial resources needed to fund government growth. When government no longer requires money from us to pay for its actions, less people care what the government does because it does not affect them financially. Thus, government is free to do whatever it pleases without limits and nobody cares.
And when that happens, as it is right now, the "limited government" that our founders believed so strongly in will be gone. That is why we're protesting. And you should be too.
Monday, March 23, 2009
On Fiscal Irresponsibiliy
The stupidity of government never fails to amuse me. Look at the recent American International Group (AIG) bailout fiasco. The president signed the bailout bill without hardly reading the table of contents, and lo and behold Senator Chris Dodd, with the encouragement of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, inserted language that allowed for $165 million to be paid as retention bonuses to AIG executives. Public outrage prompted several senators to insist on taxing these bonuses at rates of up to 90%.
This situation disturbs me on so many different levels. First, we have the government singling out specific individuals for taxation just because the government feels they deserve it. Second, what other asinine things were in that 1000-plus-page document that we have yet to discover? And last, this really shows how redundant and inefficient government is. They buy a bailout on our ever increasingly maxed-out credit card, give $165 million to executives, then decide against it and tax the money back. The government gives with one had and takes with the other, all the while senators and bureaucrats are paid in the process, wasting our money as it gets passed around. We become mad at the people receiving bonuses and demand that money is returned, but it should be noted that President Obama received $130,000 in 2008 campaign contributions from AIG. Is he giving that money back? All our representatives in Congress are granting themselves bonuses and pay raises, many of whom were responsible for either promoting policy that led to this mess, or did nothing to prevent this crisis. Why aren’t more people outraged over that?
Not only are our spending practices off the hook, but also so the amount of spending we’re doing! President Obama also promises to cut the budget deficit in half? Nice. It would sound better if he didn’t triple it first!
All this is part of a broader misunderstanding on the part of the public. Remember back at the end of President Clinton’s term in office when we had a slight budget surplus, and there was all the debate in the 2000 about how best to spend it? Pay off the national debt! Government is sneaky in how it abuses your money, and gives us a sense of victory when we have a little extra money for the year. A budget surplus simply means that we spent less money that year that the government collected…but we still DEBT back then. So Obama can promise to cut the DEFICIT in half, but that doesn’t do anything to help rid us of the national debt, which is the accumulation of years of budget deficits ($11,052,095,977,798.83 as of writing). President Bush took us down the road of huge deficit spending, but President Obama, with his massive new spending proposals, made a huge left turn that got us on the interstate.
All these problems stem from a greater crisis, in that we as a society have been spoiled with a sense of entitlement from the government. We have been granted governmental services for years that we as a nation cannot afford. Few are willing to give up these provided services. For example, the bailout money given to South Dakota was used to keep the South Dakota Art Council going. A great program, to be sure…but that was kept by throwing the cost on the national credit card, because we simply cannot afford it. Years of unfunded spending will come back to hurt us, and we need to change that now.
I have a simple solution. Why doesn’t some brave representative propose legislation requiring of the national government what the states and we as individuals must do? Spend only what we have and live within our means.
This situation disturbs me on so many different levels. First, we have the government singling out specific individuals for taxation just because the government feels they deserve it. Second, what other asinine things were in that 1000-plus-page document that we have yet to discover? And last, this really shows how redundant and inefficient government is. They buy a bailout on our ever increasingly maxed-out credit card, give $165 million to executives, then decide against it and tax the money back. The government gives with one had and takes with the other, all the while senators and bureaucrats are paid in the process, wasting our money as it gets passed around. We become mad at the people receiving bonuses and demand that money is returned, but it should be noted that President Obama received $130,000 in 2008 campaign contributions from AIG. Is he giving that money back? All our representatives in Congress are granting themselves bonuses and pay raises, many of whom were responsible for either promoting policy that led to this mess, or did nothing to prevent this crisis. Why aren’t more people outraged over that?
Not only are our spending practices off the hook, but also so the amount of spending we’re doing! President Obama also promises to cut the budget deficit in half? Nice. It would sound better if he didn’t triple it first!
All this is part of a broader misunderstanding on the part of the public. Remember back at the end of President Clinton’s term in office when we had a slight budget surplus, and there was all the debate in the 2000 about how best to spend it? Pay off the national debt! Government is sneaky in how it abuses your money, and gives us a sense of victory when we have a little extra money for the year. A budget surplus simply means that we spent less money that year that the government collected…but we still DEBT back then. So Obama can promise to cut the DEFICIT in half, but that doesn’t do anything to help rid us of the national debt, which is the accumulation of years of budget deficits ($11,052,095,977,798.83 as of writing). President Bush took us down the road of huge deficit spending, but President Obama, with his massive new spending proposals, made a huge left turn that got us on the interstate.
All these problems stem from a greater crisis, in that we as a society have been spoiled with a sense of entitlement from the government. We have been granted governmental services for years that we as a nation cannot afford. Few are willing to give up these provided services. For example, the bailout money given to South Dakota was used to keep the South Dakota Art Council going. A great program, to be sure…but that was kept by throwing the cost on the national credit card, because we simply cannot afford it. Years of unfunded spending will come back to hurt us, and we need to change that now.
I have a simple solution. Why doesn’t some brave representative propose legislation requiring of the national government what the states and we as individuals must do? Spend only what we have and live within our means.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Seatbelts Anyone?
I can't believe how stupid big government spending can be sometimes. Here's an article in the Rapid City Journal, and I became progressively more irritated the more I read.
First off, seat belts save lives, and that's a proven fact. But here's my gripe:
According to the article, if South Dakota simply makes a seat belt violation a primary offense (currently it's a secondary offense, and you can't be pulled over for just that), the Federal government will give us a five million dollar check. In times of a budget deficit, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Not so much. Should South Dakota accept that check, there are strings attached that require the money to be directed toward seat belt campaigns (everyone's probably heard those stupid "click it or ticket" campaigns in Minnesota) and safety-related things. The article states that seat belt compliance in South Dakota without any laws forcing us to do so is at 72%.
So bottom line, accepting that five million dollars of taxpayer money basically goes toward making commercials to remind us to do something that 72% of the state does already.
In addition, why is it the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Why aren't we responsible for our own safety in our vehicles? We know it's smart to wear out seat belts and most of us do, so why not use five million dollars for more worthwhile causes or perhaps not even take it from us in the first place? Criminalizing not using a seat belt will do very little to increase the 72% compliance anyway, and I think it's ridiculous that this appropriation takes taxes from the entire country to pay for seat belt radio ads in South Dakota.
These kinds of stupid, redundant appropriations are why our spending is out of control and we have a trillion dollar budget deficit. You want to talk about change? Let's start paying attention to how dumb the government's spending practices are.
First off, seat belts save lives, and that's a proven fact. But here's my gripe:
According to the article, if South Dakota simply makes a seat belt violation a primary offense (currently it's a secondary offense, and you can't be pulled over for just that), the Federal government will give us a five million dollar check. In times of a budget deficit, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Not so much. Should South Dakota accept that check, there are strings attached that require the money to be directed toward seat belt campaigns (everyone's probably heard those stupid "click it or ticket" campaigns in Minnesota) and safety-related things. The article states that seat belt compliance in South Dakota without any laws forcing us to do so is at 72%.
So bottom line, accepting that five million dollars of taxpayer money basically goes toward making commercials to remind us to do something that 72% of the state does already.
In addition, why is it the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Why aren't we responsible for our own safety in our vehicles? We know it's smart to wear out seat belts and most of us do, so why not use five million dollars for more worthwhile causes or perhaps not even take it from us in the first place? Criminalizing not using a seat belt will do very little to increase the 72% compliance anyway, and I think it's ridiculous that this appropriation takes taxes from the entire country to pay for seat belt radio ads in South Dakota.
These kinds of stupid, redundant appropriations are why our spending is out of control and we have a trillion dollar budget deficit. You want to talk about change? Let's start paying attention to how dumb the government's spending practices are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)