How Much Government | Parade.com

How Much Government | Parade.com

With government - at all levels - realizing less revenues there has been a response by government to reduce spending incrementally across the board. I have tried to start sounding the topic of eliminating some government programs altogether. Many programs are unfunded mandates requiring local government to carry the policy without the funding tied to it.

The link to the article discusses this very topic, using a different rubric for program evaluation. I'm glad somebody is finally starting to listen to me!

The ultimate result must be that government is trying to do too much with not enough. We are finally see the results of that mindset internationally. Archaic requirements must be challenged for the needs of society today.

There is a lot discussion about the illegal immigration issue and the action Arizona recently took. Well, I’m going to add my little bit to the topic also. (I know, as if anybody in authority really cares about what I think!)

I know a young pastor that works in an inner city church in another Indiana city. He has his heart in the right place. He has sacrificed much for his family to care for his small flock. He is an area where some local businesses have hired – and depend on – illegals. He defends the need to naturalize illegals for the sake of providing decent incomes for their families. “It’s just not right to take advantage of illegals by paying them depressed wages.”

The argument that supposedly justifies all of this is that the illegals are taking jobs that US citizens will not do because the wages are so low. Of course, we Americans like having low prices for consumer products. We would rather have low prices and give a blind eye to the illegals performing those jobs.

Obviously, I presented these arguments because I do disagree with them.

First, we have national borders and immigration laws for a reason.

Second, whether unemployment is high or low, Americans should have first rights to all American jobs. The apparent problem is low wages. I do believe that citizens have a right to a fair and living wage. This would have a significant impact on consumer prices. Consumers would buy less. Unemployment would continue to increase. I believe that Americans would be accepting of higher prices in exchange for something else – lower taxes!

All combined taxes on the average family have increased over the past century, especially in the past 50 years. The chart at The Tax Foundation displays that increase. Governments at all levels have been continually taking more money from taxpayers just like the frog in the pot of water on the stove – slowly so that we don’t feel the pain! If family taxes were at lower rates, they could afford higher costs for consumer goods.

But government has taken dominance in the wallet of the average American. We willingly give them more and more and they take and demand even more. Of course, all of this is justified in the name of paying for programs that make the quality of life better. Unfortunately, the escalation of government programs exceeds tax revenues.

Americans are faced with making certain decisions. Do we give lip service to illegals working in the US or make major taxation revisions that would provide for living wages in all industries?

Today is Tax Day! Ow, that hurt

April 15^th is U.S. tax day. Supposedly the day all Americans pay their taxes. This is such a false assumption.

As reported on the Tax Foundation.org website, April 9^th is the day that theoretically Americans have stopped working for the government and they can now earn their own money. Half of America has never been working for the federal government. They pay no federal income taxes. Unfortunately, many people think if their refund this year is larger than last year’s must mean that they have paid less taxes.

Americans really need to grasp how much they actually pay in taxes, at all levels. This includes income, sales, property, auto tags, and on and on and on. We don’t realize how much we really pay. Add in to the mix that businesses never pay taxes. All of those obligations are passed on to the consumer through product prices.

I think that government needs to learn a lesson who pays the bills. We need to reduce our withholding to a minimum and pay taxes due next year. Some states are not refunding overpayments to residents because they don’t have the cash available.

It is time that we taxpayers took more control over government revenues, specifically how we pay our taxes to the government!

In support of my ideas

I keep trying to tell people how far ahead of the conservative thinking that I am.

I recently wrote here that the best controls on health care costs would put the consumer in charge of his/her own decision-making.

Now I see that well-respected economist Thomas Sowell has written an article in full support of my ideas. He articulates exactly what I was leading into. I'm glad to see that he reads my blog also.

My answer to health care reform

It drives me nuts about all of this health care talk and the Dems attempt to take over the entire system.

Nowhere have I seen a real discussion about what health care should be used for. The assumption apparently is that insurance just automatically pays for every medical need (and “need” needs to be defined also).

Those people that think insurance companies have unlimited resources have no clue where the money comes from in order to pay out claims. There is no willingness to control individual medical expenses because they assume the “insurance company will pay for it.” Personal control of expenses would have a greater effect on insurance premiums than governmental price controls.

Not only should there be policy options across state lines, there should be greater policy plan options. I think that if people paid for more of personal basic expenses – such as many drugs, doctor, or preventative exams – would help to bring down overall costs. Options for singles or childless couples that essentially covered only catastrophic issues would keep premiums down.

Where is my logic wrong? Oh, that’s right…it isn’t.

Loosen the bureaucratic collar

My last post raised the issue of reducing bureaucratic regulations as a means to reduce expenses to business and local government.

Here is one example of regulations that could be addressed. Various vehicle fuels are required to meet requirements for regions of the country and seasons of the year. These variations increase costs in development, storage, and transfer which are all obviously passed on to the consumer. The consumer includes me at the gas station, the trucking industry that transports products around the country, and even local government when the schools have to put fuel in the buses.

The following map gives an example of fuel (boutique blends) differences around the country.

Can you give some examples also?

A new suggestion to save some money

At all levels of government, belt-tightening is taking place. Here in Indiana, property taxes will soon be frozen as a percentage based on property values. Because of that, local government will be facing lower revenues to provide current services. Sales, business, and income tax revenues are also much lower for the current fiscal year.

So to avoid the pain, some local governments are considering new forms of local income taxes to offset revenue deficits. Other localities are severely reducing services, such as fire protection or trash pickup.

I would like to suggest a third alternative that could relieve some pressure to local governments and possibly help private businesses reduce expenses and possibly redirect those expenses to hiring new employees. My suggestion would be that all levels of government look to reduce regulatory burdens.

Even though I do not identify any specific regulations to eliminate, I do believe – if asked – businesses could easily identify which are most burdensome or costly. There are many federal and state regulations that are imposed on local governments without sufficient revenues to fulfill those policies. Some could be reduced or removed to provide relief.

This is the time and place for somebody out there to start talking. What regulations cause you the most problems that could save everybody some money??

That was then, this is now

Twenty-eight years minus one day, another President gave his first State of the Union speech. Similarly, the United States was in an economic recession. At that time, unemployment was over 10%, inflation and consumer interest rates were above 15% each. In his speech, President Reagan outlined his plan to bring the country out of that recession.

The cumulative national debt had just exceeded one trillion dollars. More than 200 years were needed to accumulate that level. (We have now crossed $12 trillion and see no end in sight for its continued growth.)

Reagan listed 3 keys to reducing budget deficits. First, encourage economic growth. Second, Lower interest rates and third, control federal spending. He was very adamant about NOT raising taxes as an attempt to lower the deficit. He felt that would encourage federal spending (and the Democrats in charge of Congress did not lower spending) and would discourage private investment.

He also referred to recent meetings with foreign leaders. He said how they were surprised that he (Reagan) did NOT apologize for American wealth and its strength of the free marketplace.

These policies DID turn around the national economy then.

Now, 28 years later, another President stood before Congress with a similar economic situation. Fortunately, we do not experience the devastating interest rates we did then. Unfortunately, he is taking just the opposite approach. Considering that Reagan's plan worked - and it did - Obama's plan will probably will not succeed. Our international standing will fall, as it already has started.

I believe Obama may very well be a one term president.

I am going to be a granfather!!

I am going to be a grandfather for the first time this coming summer. I know, it's no big deal. Many people have been, currently are, and will be in the future.

What has been different now - compared to when I first became a parent - is the associated technology. My daughter-in-law had an ultrasound performed on the baby at about 12 weeks gestation. Then she had the video put on Facebook. I watched that and it was so amazing. The detail of the baby was amazing. The doctor was able to measure the fetus at this point. Less than 2 inches long.

Less than 2 inches - and the formed details of the child were amazing! Although I know that the internal organs haven't fully developed yet, it was still inspiring to see the definition.

All of this brings me to two points. The first is that seeing that ultrasound affirms that all of creation is controlled by a creator. HE knows what HE is doing. This life has a name, character, and eternal soul already. The Creator does this kind of work every day and HE is really good at it. Watching the ultrasound has already developed a unique relationship between child, mother, father, grandparents, and great-grandparents.

The second point is that watching the fetus in this ultrasound reminds me that "it" can generate an income for one of two opposite workers. An obstetrician can work to help the mother through the pregnancy to birth. The alternative, ugly side is that the fetus can be destroyed. How can anybody - ANYBODY -really watch the ultrasound and say it is just a mass of tissue ( I saw the baby dance!) and be willing to destroy it???

Well, anyway, this is one exciting time in the Gordon family.

The Awful Dilemma

I am amazed that the tree-hugging, environmentalist liberals are so determined to link human existence to global warming. Now the US EPA is going to regulate carbon dioxide as a deadly gas.

Last time I checked, every time I breathe, I exhale that deadly gas. Last time I checked, nature needs carbon dioxide to survive. I guess we kind of need each other to survive.

Well, many of these environmental do-gooders really want to limit global population to regulate global carbon dioxide. Yet, I find so much irony in the behavior of these do-gooders in failing to limit their "carbon footprint."

I think the real proof in their dedication to preserving the natural state of the global environment would be in the ultimate self-sacrifice. Reduce global population to preserve the environment starting with themselves.

But, if they are gone, who would be our social conscience???? The awful dilemma.