SEN.COBURN: Payback? Was funding for GAO cut because of their report on Govt. Waste?

And has the report that came out in March been ignored by our elected officials because they care more about re-election support from special interests than saving the taxpayers money?  I thought so before the interview, now judge for yourself.

Greta Van Susteren interviews Sen. Tom Coburn

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/uncut-sen-tom-coburn-on-the-record/

THOMAS SOWELL: Back to the Future?

September 13, 2011

Those who are impressed by words seem to think that President Barack Obama made a great speech to Congress last week. But, when you look beyond the rhetoric, what did he say that was fundamentally different from what he has been saying and doing all along?


Are we to continue doing the same kinds of things that have failed again and again, just because Obama delivers clever words with style and energy?

Once we get past the glowing rhetoric, what is the president proposing? More spending! Only the words have changed -- from "stimulus" to "jobs" and from "shovel-ready projects" to "jobs for construction workers."  (Mostly union and temporary jobs!)


CONTINUE READING:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/back_to_the_future_111307.html

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: Craven County Spending Excesses, by CCTA Vice Chairman, Nancy Murdoch

August 13, 2011

As a member of Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association I, with several other members, attended the Craven County Board of Commissioners’ meeting on Aug. 1.

One of the items on the agenda was a new service offered by the health department, serving the uninsured earning above 200 percent of the poverty level. By my estimation that amount would be around $40,000 per year. This is not a completely free service; fees are on a sliding scale with an example given of the patient paying about 40 percent of the fee. As of this time the cost is covered from other funds, and Public Health Director Scott Harrelson said he was confident funds would be there in the future.

As an observer of public expenditures, I believe that is not always the case. These are tight economic times, and a bad time to be adding programs and potential costs to taxpayers.

Individuals have a responsibility to provide their own health care, just as they do other necessities of life. Money is available for new cars, new clothes, new cell phones, and myriad other "unnecessary" things. Somehow health care never makes the list, and all too often the taxpayer is expected to pick up the tab.

Health insurance is available with various deductibles, but many will rely on public facilities if they are inexpensive and there for the taking.

The commissioners approved the move, with Commissioner Allen saluting the worthiness of the project.

Commissioner Allen is a fine man with a long history of dedicated public service, but he seems to have never met a public project he doesn’t love. It is been my observation that getting rid of a government program is akin to getting rid of crabgrass: a long, arduous process. Next year when the program is reviewed and is by then a budget item, will there still be funds available or will the taxpayers be expected to take up the slack?

On another vein, Mr. Hal James, a member of Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, addressed the commissioners regarding a junket undertaken by two county commissioners to Portland, Ore., for a convention of the National Association of Counties.

We were interested in hearing about what the commissions learned that would justify this expense. Commissioner Sampson gave a response of sound bites that could have come from the website of the association, adding emphasis that belonging and attending these meetings gave them "power."

I think the power resides in the hands of the citizens, but perhaps I’m mistaken. In no way did he give a satisfactory reply to spending taxpayer money in this fashion. Travel money has been budgeted, but the other commissioners declined to go, stating it was not in the best interests of the taxpayers at this time. How many families are staying home this year due to the high price of gas and an uncertain economic future?

Members of CCTA are attempting through their watchdog efforts to keep abreast of monetary concerns in Craven County, and to educate the public on fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. We are not terrorists; we are concerned citizens.

Nancy Murdoch, CCTA Vice Chairman
Havelock, NC

http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/county-99708-craven-attended.html




© Copyright 2011 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy
User Agreement
Site Map

How the Value Added Tax Works

The spending pace of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress simply cannot be sustained. There will either have to be spending cuts or higher taxes. The left prefers higher taxes, including the imposition of a value-added tax (VAT). How would a VAT work. Heritage scholar Curtis Dubay explains
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/28/how-the-value-added-tax-works/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

A MUST SEE!

John Stossel (Fox News) - "Battle for the Future"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UOJXGxLLM&feature=related (Pt. 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6hxe8zEJPw&feature=related (Pt. 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMI6H0p4cr8&feature=related (Pt. 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEgB0rcqgqo&feature=related (Are Americans Too Stupid to Vote)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI&feature=related (Insurance Makes Healthcare More Expensive)

Battle for The Future (partial transcript)

by John Stossel, Oct. 22, 2010, on FoxNews.com

For most of the life of America, and when it grew fastest, government spent just a few hundred dollars per person. Today, the federal government alone spends $10,000.

Politicians talk about cuts, but the cuts rarely happen. The political class always needs more.

I see the pressure. All day, Congress listens to people who say they need and deserve help.

The cost of any one program per taxpayer is small, but the benefits are concentrated on well-organized interest groups. It's tough for a weak politician to say no.

But maybe things are changing. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., believes that "more and more people in America are beginning to wake up to the fact that this thing is coming unglued."

I asked Ryan why his colleagues say it's OK to spend more. Are they just stupid? Don't they care? Or are they pandering for votes?

"Pandering could be a part of it," he said. "But ... they believe that the government should be far larger." They are taught that by the progressives who rule academia, like Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill.

"We have to make sure that the most vulnerable people are always protected," Hill says. Everyone benefits when we pay a little bit more to create universal health care. Everyone benefits when we pay a little more to have better public education systems."

Progressives use the word "we" too often. When I argued the that "we" and "government" are not the same, he said, "We always talk about the government like it's this monster in the hills that comes down and hands things out and takes our tax money."

Well, yes.

Those are "libertarian fairytales," Hill says. "In real life, the government is us."

Government is not "us." Well, it's us in the sense that we pay the bills. But it ain't us. It's them, the policy elite and their patrons.

What percent of the economy does Hill think government should be?

"For me, housing, health care and education, in addition to national defense, are things that the government must provide for people. So if that means 20 percent, I'm OK with it. If it means 30 percent, I'm OK with it.

I don't think it'll ever get that big."

Give me a break. It's already at 40 percent!

All that spending is taken from your and my pockets — some in taxes, much in sneakier ways like government borrowing. The national debt — now $13 trillion — simply represents future taxes or the erosion of the dollar.

Yet progressives want us to pay more. One woman activist told our camera, "It costs to live in a civilized society, and we all need to pay our fair share."

Our "fair share" sounds good. Progressives say taking from the rich to help the poor is simply fair.

I put that to Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.

"No, the fairest system is the one that rewards the makers in society as opposed to rewarding the takers in society."

Brooks wrote "The Battle," which argues that the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape our future.

"The way that our culture is moving now is toward more redistribution, toward more progressive taxation, exempting more people from paying anything, and loading more of the taxes onto the very top earners in our society."

But it seems "kind" to take it away from wealthier people and give it to those who need it more.

"Actually, it's not," Brooks says. "The government does not create wealth. It uses wealth that's been created by the private sector."

He warns that "Americans are in open rebellion today because the government is threatening to take us from a maker nation into taker nation status."

Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies. When I've said to tea partiers, "We should cut Medicare, eliminate agriculture subsidies, kill entire federal agencies," the enthusiasm usually fades from their eyes.

I hope that I am wrong and Brooks is right.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at http://www.johnstossel.com/





COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.