Senator Crapo is in the House speaking to us about the danger of uncontrolled spending. He did not support the Obama stimulus package. "We cannot spend ourselves to prosperity."
This year's federal deficit is going to be $1.6 billion up from $200 billion under Bush.
He states that the federal government is taking control of companies and growing phenomenally. Freddy Mac, AIG, the Health Care Bill, etc.
Good news is that the reaction of the American public is wide and broad causing Congress to reconsider its ways. He sees hope in developing energy. Coal might even be making a come back.
Showing posts with label federal deficits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal deficits. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Entitlements and Federal Deficits?
Last year, the federal government ran a $1.4 trillion deficit which was three times as high as Pres. Bush. (and we thought Bush spent too much) Over 65 percent of the federal budget goes to pay for entitlements and payments on the national debt.
The Founding Fathers never expected the federal government to take care of the poor. This was not a federal responsibility. This was a family, church, and local responsibility.
Consider:
$500 million, used more efficiently at the state level, could solve many of Idaho's budget problems and allow the federal government to get its fiscal house in order.
The Founding Fathers never expected the federal government to take care of the poor. This was not a federal responsibility. This was a family, church, and local responsibility.
Consider:
- federal programs cost 30 to 50 percent more than state programs
- if all federal social programs were returned to the states along with the revenue for these programs
- then, a state like Idaho couls save 30 percent or $500 million on its $1.9 billion H&W budget
$500 million, used more efficiently at the state level, could solve many of Idaho's budget problems and allow the federal government to get its fiscal house in order.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Reform DHW
Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) members testified in favor of a one year removal of the asset test for food stamps that greatly increases the number of citizens eligible for food stamps. I want to share why I believe this specific proposal and the whole H&W system is unsustainable and must be reformed.
First, the federal budget is unsustainable. Neither raising taxes nor increasing the federal deficit is possible without harming the economy or threatening to destroy our monetary system. A monetary collapse, by itself, would stop all federal social spending harming all those dependent upon federal services when they disappear.
Second, the current H&W system is based upon the redistribution of wealth through force. Taxes are not voluntary. This legal theft is justified by many because it is thought to benefit those in need; however, true charity is voluntary. Our current system of forced charity distorts the economy, negatively impacts the character of the people, and creates a growing class of dependent individuals. All of which, will probably destroy our system of limited government and transform America into a centralized, bureaucratic state.
Third, the current system stimulates consumption without encouraging production. As the number of individuals that consume without producing increases the overall wealth of the nation decreases leading, eventually, to generalized poverty. What we need is a policy of charity that leads to generalized wealth through increasing the productive capacity of the recipients.
I believe we need a new vision of charity. We need a reformation of the current system based upon:
This is a vision of sustainable charity. There has never been a better time to begin the process. For many years, the federal government has assumed more and more responsibility for delivering social services. Deficits and social problems have increased in a direct proportion to the growth of federal power.
We need to reverse the process and petition for the return to the states of this responsibility along with the resources that accompany them. According to our Founding Fathers, the federal government was never meant to be responsible for the needs of individuals within the states. The simple act of removing this responsibility from the federal government and giving it back to the states would reduce the cost of social services by 30 to 50 percent and would, almost immediately, solve federal and state budget problems.
First, the federal budget is unsustainable. Neither raising taxes nor increasing the federal deficit is possible without harming the economy or threatening to destroy our monetary system. A monetary collapse, by itself, would stop all federal social spending harming all those dependent upon federal services when they disappear.
Second, the current H&W system is based upon the redistribution of wealth through force. Taxes are not voluntary. This legal theft is justified by many because it is thought to benefit those in need; however, true charity is voluntary. Our current system of forced charity distorts the economy, negatively impacts the character of the people, and creates a growing class of dependent individuals. All of which, will probably destroy our system of limited government and transform America into a centralized, bureaucratic state.
Third, the current system stimulates consumption without encouraging production. As the number of individuals that consume without producing increases the overall wealth of the nation decreases leading, eventually, to generalized poverty. What we need is a policy of charity that leads to generalized wealth through increasing the productive capacity of the recipients.
I believe we need a new vision of charity. We need a reformation of the current system based upon:
- Private charity
- Building family capacity rather than state programs
- Lower taxes
- Strengthening of the interfaith network
This is a vision of sustainable charity. There has never been a better time to begin the process. For many years, the federal government has assumed more and more responsibility for delivering social services. Deficits and social problems have increased in a direct proportion to the growth of federal power.
We need to reverse the process and petition for the return to the states of this responsibility along with the resources that accompany them. According to our Founding Fathers, the federal government was never meant to be responsible for the needs of individuals within the states. The simple act of removing this responsibility from the federal government and giving it back to the states would reduce the cost of social services by 30 to 50 percent and would, almost immediately, solve federal and state budget problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)