Tags

, , , , , , ,

The left media is beginning their usual crying parade about what Republicans are “taking away” from their pet projects and social programs. Last night on liberal CBS, I watched a presentation of the “Reading is Fundamental” program lamenting its proposed ending. RIF provides free books for poor children. It appears to be a great initiative and serves over 4 million children. They reported on the CBS special that they receive 75% of their funding from the federal government. Isn’t this the problem we are hearing about across the country with the public sector? Don’t they receive too much of their funding from the federal government?

Not only does our federal government contribute our tax dollars to too many social programs, they also always spend way too much on those programs.

Take a look at the Health and Human Services bar and then our Treasury’s interest on our debt–the only other high expense is our defense. Some would argue that is not needed. Those folks are either a little addle-brained or have a very short memory.

From Federal Budget.com
In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created with the duty of preserving the dollar, one 20-dollar bill could buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Today, fifty 20-dollar bills are needed to buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Under the Fed’s custody, the U.S. dollar has lost 98 percent of its value. The dollar is the storehouse of our wealth. Has the Fed faithfully safeguarded that storehouse? Was it not Thomas Jefferson who taught us, “In questions of power let us hear no more of trust in men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution”?

With the national debt at 14.1 trillion, it’s time to take a serious look at the spending both political parties have done–with the Obama administration in the lead of all time. The Democrats want to cut spending by a supposed $10 billion (although they claim $41 billion). That’s like sweeping away a bucket full of sand from a beach. The Republicans claim $100 billion (although it is really $60 billion). From The Washington Post:

So what is Reid talking about when he says Democrats have already proposed $41 billion in cuts? He’s talking about the difference between what Obama proposed last year — and was never enacted — and 2010 spending. Or, to put it another way, he’s talking about cutting spending that never happened.

Republicans can play the same game. House Republicans brag that the House bill passed last week cut spending by $100 billion. That also is from the levels proposed in the Obama budget. So an apples-to-apples comparison would be about $100 billion in cuts in the House vs. about $40 billion in the Senate, or $60 billion in the House vs. zero in the Senate. Either way, there’s a gap of about $60 billion.

In times past, before Johnson’s Great Society, before FDR’s New Deal, before these and other programs destroyed cultures and families, communities and neighbors helped each other. People did not automatically depend on government–local groups took care of their own and charity was something in which everyone who could, was expected to engage.

In February 2009, Obama included in his budget discussions, a plan to reduce charitable deductions for the wealthy The point, I believe, in addition to the all-encompassing control represented by the cost of Obamacare, was to make government power and control the final coffin on individual responsibility.

Several billion dollars could be lost in charitable gifts because of the tax proposal, say philanthropy scholars. The White House says that the plan won’t hurt charities, in part because it doesn’t take effect until 2011, when Obama officials expect the economic recovery to have begun.

At this point, with government dependency so comprehensive, although cuts must be large, they must be made with wise discretion.

Find all the proposed cuts that passed the House here: PROPOSED CUTS

From AskHeritage.Org:

President Obama would like you to think he has seen the light on spending. His own budget says “we must free ourselves from the burden of historic deficits and growing debt.” But despite this lofty rhetoric, he proposed a budget for FY 2012 that increases spending and nearly doubles our national debt over the decade. He then pledged to veto the House-passed Continuing Resolution once again claiming fiscal responsibility while rejecting it at the same time. It is time for him to demonstrate leadership. Mr. President, the time for cuts is now.

Advertisements