My Goal to FORCE fiscal responsibilty on Congress

My objective with this campaign is to establish a plan for the financial stability and safety of our Federal Government. While I have many objectives for our government at all levels, this is in my mind the most critical to protecting our way of life. It requires a Constitutional Amendment, which would be fought by most of Congress. I need your support to pressure them into considering this seriously, and for those that do not, remove them from their offices.

My amendment reads as follows:

1) The Federal Budget may not exceed 80% of anticipated revenue for any single year. 20% of the budget is to be applied to principal of the National Debt, as long as it exists, after which this amount will be used for Social Security.

2) Congress may allocate an additional 10% of revenue during that year for emergency funding by a 3/4 majority vote.

Statistics and Numbers

According to the US Treasury, as of Oct 31st, 2010, the National Debt is $13,668,825,000,000 ($13.67T).
This is $44,003 per PERSON living in the US. That's 310,634,295 people in the US according to Census.gov. For my family of 6, that equates to $264,018, more than the value of my home.

For the Federal Government to continue operating they way they are now, if this amendment were in place, they would have to increase taxes by $4,000 per person. Would you allow your representatives to stay in office if they raised taxes that much?

Saturday, November 6, 2010

How to reduce the budget #1

Well, first thing I think should happen, since we're borrowing money and paying interest, is to stop GIVING money away to special interests, charities, foreign governments and subsidies.

Let me clear about this, my proposal does not mention social programs such as school lunch or food stamps. I'll address those later.

What I mean is this, the wealthy should not consider farm land a viable investment to get federal money. Subdivision developers promote developments as a way to get federal dollars annually. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html). An example is the sheep industry in New Zealand that recently lost all federal subsidies in their country. It is now a more efficient, thriving industry because of change. Subsidies promote laziness. http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies.shtml

Even charities like the Boys & Girls club, which I support, was under fire earlier this year for excessive executive salaries, travel expenses and over half a million dollars in lobbying. Is this how a credible charity should behave? When they realize that it will return many times that in federal dollars, yes, they should. This is not an isolated incident and it's unfortunate.

These programs can be reviewed and considered at the state or local levels much more effectively for social aid and should not be influenced by federal lobbists and congress.

Regarding foreign aid, I do not believe we are an island and should cease foreign relations, but we cannot afford to borrow money to give to another county who is probably carrying less debt than we are and pay for it at 4% for the next 30 or more years. If we need to loan someone money, let's do it with the same terms at which we're borrowing it. Let them pay the interest on it.

Government should not drive private research with a government agenda. If it is marketable and worth research dollars, plenty of big pharmaceutical or chemical companies invest the money. If public money is used to fund research, the public should have an ownership in that technology based on the percentage of investment made. And I don't think government should own companies, stocks or patents, which borders on socialism and is a slippery slope.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)