
Jenny EriksonGovernment spending has to be renewed every year. Which means that an annual budget needs to be passed by Congress and signed by the President. That budget is currently being debated in the Senate, as the deadline to pass it is this Saturday at midnight. If it’s not passed, the government will discontinue nonessential services until we can come to some sort of agreement about how and where to spend taxpayer dollars.
The omnibus spending bill is nearly 2,000 pages long and has a price tag of $1,270,000,000,000, which includes $8,000,000,000 in earmark spending. There are thousands of these pet-projects in the bill, including $247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington State and $400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas.
Republicans are outraged at this excessive spending, and are refusing to pass the bill because of it. Never mind that some of them have their own earmarks in there. The thing about earmarks -- they’re necessary for politicians to get a slice of the pie for their constituents. If politicians don’t bring home the proverbial bacon for their districts or states, they face losing their jobs by being voted out. The system might be messed up, but it is what it is, and until we start asking serious questions about the practicality of using federal funds for local projects, it stays.
While nothing to sneeze at, earmarks make up less than 1% of this spending bill. Arguing over them distracts from the real issue -- the amount of money wasted on nonessential services. Even if we have a "government shutdown" in the next week, essential services such as law enforcement, social security, health services, and education would continue to be funded. Which raises the question: What is nonessential government spending and how much do we spend on it?
The last time the government shut down in the mid-90s, 42% of the personnel at affected agencies were sent home for a few weeks; 99% at the Department of Housing and Urban Development were deemed nonessential. What are those federal employees doing over there? Why do we have a government department in which 99% of its employees are nonessential?
Corporate welfare and subsidies eat up another huge chunk of change. Farm subsidies alone cost Americans $25 billion annually, “the majority of which are granted to commercial farmers, who also report an average income of $200,000 and an average net worth of $2 million.” Fortune 500 companies like IBM and General Electric receive millions in grant money ... I have a feeling they’d survive without it.
Government spending is out of control, and the debate over earmarks is just the tip of the iceberg. Politicians need to do what families across the nation have done in this tough economy: Tighten the belt and wave goodbye to excessive spending.
Do People Who Have Kids Deserve Special Treatment?
Controversy: Gwen Stefani Bleaches Her Son's Hair
A '50 Shades of Grey' Shortcut for Busy Moms
Latest on Baby in Washing Machine Case (VIDEO)
Are People Who Eat Organic Judgy & Mean?
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
Emma Lives with Severe Food Allergies
How to Pack a No-Waste Lunch
Memorial Day Survival Guide
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis

Comments (13)
Nursing Homes NEED more staff and more training eligibility for those willing. Never enough staff or workers being hired, why?? Dental has hit an all time low, lines to wait for services are longer, waiting periods are months to over one year to have 1 filling. Crimes and drugs areas need MORE WATCHES that are funded and have WORKING POLICE watches not just street volunteers. Less spending on weed control in Nevada and other types as this, can be an answer.
Madelyn, how can you justify a tax increase in light of all the waste the post mentions? Shouldn't they cut the waste BEFORE they consider a tax increase?
Madelyn,who says its a tax break anyway? The top 10% pay the most in dollars and % of their income. How is that fair, expecially considering that at least 80 percent of top-earners are first generation wealthy? How would you like it if you suddenly started using a plan that worked over time, only to have everything that you worked for be taxed to death?
Jenny, I would love to see you do a review of The Law by Fredric Bestait. You can access it for free here.
But tell me, how do you then justify continuing to give a tax break to people who make more than a million dollars a year?
How do you justify taxing these people at a higher rate to continue to fund NON-ESSENTIAL government? If your neighbor comes knocking on your door and demands $50 a month of your income to pay for a new car he can't afford without your money, should you have to give it to him just because you make more than him? It's the same damn thing to assume that people who earn more should be expected to give up more to fund the masses. Don't expect someone else to do something you're not willing to do yourself. You're not entitled to dig into someone's pockets because they have more.
Wow. So because I think that the top earners should be taxed at the rate at which they were already being taxed, somehow I think I'm entitled to their money? Just, wow. You guys have obviously not studied tax and have no concept of the principle of vertical equity. I assume that you probably think we should go to a flat tax? Pick up a tax textbook. It's not worth arguing with you.
Yes, if you believe in a sliding tax scale, then you believe you're entitled to money you didn't earn, and yes, I also think we should go flat tax. "Vertical equity" is putting lipstick on a pig that generally goes by "redistribution of wealth". And you're also right that there's no point in arguing with me, because unless you're happy to shell out that $50 to your neighbor who makes less that you, you don't have an argument to make, and neither does your textbook. The rich/wealthy have worked harder, smarter, and better, or just been luckier, than you and I, and they shouldn't be obligated to take care of your neighbor any more or less than you should.