Growth of Government

Growth of Federal and State Budgets

Let’s see if the claims that have been made about out-of-control taxes are justified. We’ll examine the growth of the income and expenditures (also known as the budget) in both the Federal government and the largest state, California (statistics were obtained from official government documents). Maybe there is justification for all of these nasty tax hikes many of us despise.

It is an important point to emphasize that most state governments will use the ruse that state budget expenditures have kept pace with the economy as measured by your personal income. In essence they are trying to dupe you into relating the tax increases to your personal income instead of in real dollars, which means they are telling you as you prosper and grow, they’ll take more of your money just because you’ve worked hard. This is deliberately misleading and masks their wholesale theft.

First, we’ll compare the population increases in the U.S. and California with the Federal and state budget, respectively, to see if they have kept pace with these growth patterns. The Comparison of Population Increases chart below shows the population growth in the U.S. and California (for the period from 1970 to 2004), as you would reasonably think that population growth should be a direct indicator of the need for increased Federal and state budgets.

Year	California	U.S.A.
1970	19,953,100	204,034,800
1980	23,668,600	226,544,600
1990	29,760,000	248,709,900
2004	35,484,453	288,368,698
Population Increase Since 1970	77%	41%

Comparison of Population Increases 1970-2004

Now we’ll look at the change in the Federal and state budgets. The Comparison of Budget Increases chart (next page) illustrates the changes in the Federal and state budgets for that same period in time, after factoring in the percentage of growth. However, we can’t forget about that nasty villain, inflation. To be fair in our evaluation, we must factor in the increase in inflation during this 30+-year period. As unwieldy as it seems, the inflation rate from January 1970 to December 2003 was 472%. This means if an item were purchased for $100.00 in 1970, that same item would cost $472.00 in 2004.

Year	California	U.S.A.
1970	$4,533,600	$192,807,000
1980	$17,871,500	$517,112,000
1990	$38,749,500	$1,031,969,000
2004/2005	$105,300,000	$2,036,273,000
% Budget Increase Since 1970	2,322%	1,056%
% Budget Increase Since 1970 (Factoring in population growth)	1,298%	748%
Budget Increase Since 1970 (Factoring in inflation)	269%	160%

Comparison of Budget Increases 1970-2004 (in million of dollars)

The California budget is about 23 times larger then it was in 1970 ($105 vs. $4 billion). As the expression goes, we need to compare apples and apples, and not apples and oranges, so when you factor in population growth (77%) and inflation (472%), it still means the state budget is almost 3 times larger then it was in 1970 in the same 1970 dollars. The Federal budget is about 10 times larger then it was in 1970. When you factor in population growth and inflation, it still means that the Federal budget is 160% larger then it was in 1970 in the same 1970 dollars.

These numbers mean that the average Californian paid $227 in state taxes in 1970, and then factoring in population growth and inflation paid $658 in 2004 (in 1970 dollars). A quick glance at these charts reveals that the average Californian is paying three times as much in state taxes (269% growth) as they did 30+ years ago. In addition, the average California taxpayer paid $944 in Federal income tax in 1970 and $1,492 in 2004 (in 1970 dollars) – somewhat more than a sixty percent increase. Therefore, if you are a resident of California you get hit with the double whammy of paying increased state and Federal taxes amounting to close to a five-fold increase, proving (whether we like it or not) the old adage that “a fool and his money are soon parted.” My cursory examination revealed that the same outrageous increases apply to most states, whether the number is slightly higher or lower than the California statistics.

Now this five-fold increase does not take into account the yearly increases in the state sales tax, gasoline taxes, all of the new taxes (such as cell phone towers – yes, cell phone towers) and luxury items such as alcohol and cigarettes. Now that’s a real winner. In the state of New Jersey, only $.06 of every dollar collected in the vastly increased tobacco tax program (over $6.00 for a pack of cigarettes) goes towards smoking cessation programs. New York imposes combined excise and sales taxes of $33.30 on every carton of cigarettes sold by stores located in the Big Apple. I hate to imagine how city officials waste that money. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, Federal income taxes represent only 42% of the total tax burden for U.S. taxpayers, and that your total tax burden comprises 56% of your consumer spending. Government taxes are slapped onto more than just a few items. The items you are taxed on by both the feds and the states (and sometimes local governments) include Federal fuel excise tax (18.4 cents per gallon) and variable state and local fuel taxes, liquor, inoculations ($.75 per shot), firearms, hotel rooms, airline tickets, airport usage, real estate transfer fees, utility bills (gas, oil and telecommunications), contamination, motor vehicles, truck, auto rentals, inheritance, business, gift taxes, marriage licenses, pet licenses, severance taxes, imports, restaurant meals, retail, wholesale, package sales, estates, dividends and trusts, fur clothing, hazardous wastes, investments, dry cleaner solvents, controlled substances (controlled substances?), landfill, duty and excise, cosmetic surgery (6% in New Jersey), and above all lawful gambling taxes. I have only mentioned a few of the more common taxes above because these are the most obvious examples. I don’t have the patience to list the all-consuming taxes of which most of us are not even aware.

As long as we live and breathe, taxes we are hit with are not limited to Federal taxes, state income taxes (41 states), property taxes (in some states a very substantial amount), state sales taxes (45 states), excise taxes, Medicare taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, and local taxes. Nevada is one of the few states without a state income tax due to the revenues acquired from the gaming tables, but I’ll bet that won’t last for long.

Governor Schwarzenegger of California recently reached agreement with all concerned for a budget for fiscal year 2004/2005 of $105 billion, including a $14-15 billion deficit. This means the budget has increased over $30 billion in the short span of just 3 years, an increase of over 40%. Thankfully almost half of the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget will be spent on education. It doesn’t require a mathematics professor to realize that this gigantic budget increase is considerably higher than the growth caused by the population increase and inflation – magnitudes higher. Even though the people voted for a balanced budget amendment, the politicians once again found a way to ignore their pleas. I woe the day when California declares bankruptcy. Then there really will be hell to pay.

In addition to the backbreaking Federal and state budget increases, even the cities are getting into your wallet. New York City, with a budget of $49 billion, more than many countries, is experiencing budget growth at four times the rate of inflation. The budget for the last two years has increased nearly 10%, and most of that increase is attributable to Medicaid, outlandish pensions and debt service. To pay for these huge budget increases, a number of these larger cities impose a city income tax that drains another 1% on up to 5% of your income. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, the total for hidden taxes alone costs the consumer $657.5 billion (or more than a $½ trillion) per year.

We’re not done yet. Let’s examine those taxes that can literally destroy small businesses - the backbone of the nation. Large and small businesses are forced to pay worker’s compensation taxes, unemployment taxes, social security taxes, and insurance premium taxes. And it’s not just the taxes. The cost of complying with government over-regulation, especially small businesses, can often be the straw that broke the camel’s back driving a business into bankruptcy.

A new law was passed, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which required Federal agencies to publish the rules where the impact on small business may exceed $100 million. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 29 different Federal departments have created over 700 of these rules. The Environmental Protection Agency published 163 rules, while the Department of Health and Human Services published 100 rules, while the Department of Labor published 39 rules. Even the national Credit Union Administration managed to sneak in a rule.

In 1997, Federal, state and local governments collected over $215 billion in corporate income taxes, which translates to about $806 per taxpayer (and taxes have increased substantially since then).

Depending on where you live, property taxes may well be the largest bite of your income you pay each month. In New Jersey, which has the dubious distinction of having the highest property taxes in the nation, one individual I know pays $1,550 per month to his mortgage company, with over $1,000 per month being paid in property taxes (that’s $12,000 per year). Remember that property taxes only go to fill the local government or state’s coffers, depending on your state. This government extortion is separate from Federal and state income taxes. The one charade I love is how in some states, the politicians mask the enormity of the property tax rip-off by offering rebates at the end of the year (just prior to the November election), as if I’m supposed to feel warm and fuzzy all over because you gave me back a small portion of my own money.

Let’s face it; whenever there is a budget deficit, politicians automatically want taxes raised. In our private lives, whenever we find ourselves running out of money, most of us think about cutting back on our spending, but not so in government.

When you look at the big picture, I estimate that the average American is paying 10 times more in taxes than we paid in 1970 (in 1970 dollars). So where does this great bounty of money go, you might ask? It goes into the Black Hole of Calcutta like all of the other tax revenues. The answer to reform all of this bleeding of the American taxpayer is really very simple. For one, eliminate all of the unnecessary expenditures that we don’t need – likely at least one-half the budget items. Two, eliminate all of the blatant obscene and hidden taxes and replace it with a national sales tax (see the chapter, “Reforming Our Tax System”). Then and only then will we know what we really pay in taxes every time we purchase an item in the store. And number three, get rid of all of the politicians, but I’ll explore that possibility later.

Federal Income Tax Expressly Forbidden by Constitution

Now, after all of that information, here’s the real barnburner that should raise the hairs on the back of your neck. According to the Constitution, Congress is only permitted to levy two types of taxes:

1. Direct taxes, which are subject to the rule of apportionment among the states of the Union. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states in part,

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the states which may be included within this according to their respective Numbers,…”

2. Indirect Taxes, including imports, duties and excises. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 states in part,

“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress….”

For clarification the term apportionment means, “Allotment of direct taxes on the basis of state population.” Therefore, if Congress did collect income taxes, they should be divided amongst the states based on population.

However, these two clauses are very specific in that the Constitution does not allow the deferral government to use either of these two clauses to tax citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States of America directly. The express purpose of these clauses was to make sure the Federal government was the servant of the people and not the master.

Now here’s the second barnburner. In 1894, Congress passed an act to impose a tax on the incomes of citizens and resident aliens of the United States. The act was challenged and in 1895, the Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional. In 1916, the XVI Amendment to the Constitution was ratified with questionable approval by more than 2/3 of the states. In a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, they stated that the XVI Amendment conferred no new power of taxation. Ignoring that court ruling, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruled that this amendment means that it permits direct taxes without apportionment to the states. In other words, Uncle Sam can keep all of the booty he has looted from the taxpayer’s wallets. What else would you expect? And to add insult to injury, according to many legal experts, the IRS does not have the authority to conclude such an important decision.

Payment of Taxes Is Strictly Voluntary

Around April 15^th when you fill out your income tax forms, according to many legal experts, you are volunteering to pay your taxes for that year. Let me repeat that – volunteering to pay your taxes. What is very interesting about the process is that the only way you can have taxes deducted from your paycheck is by obtaining a Social Security Number (and card). Then when you enter that 9-digit number on IRS Form W-4 and sign it, you are permitting the withholding of those taxes. This is one reason why the IRS pressures parents to apply for Social Security Numbers for their children at an early age. Ironically, there is no mandatory provision that requires workers to have a Social Security Number or sign a withholding form to qualify and keep a job, but we all know that all payroll systems within most companies can’t function unless you conform to Big Brother.

Over the years, many individuals have attempted to fight the system by 1) having the maximum number of deductions withheld from their paychecks and then 2) by not filing their income tax. According to the Free Enterprise Society (www.freeenterprisesociety.ws), they claimed that they have repeatedly beaten the IRS and other tax agencies in court for more than 15 years. This is when the IRS Gestapo troops descend on the “criminal” using fear, bluff, deception and outright intimidation to get their monies, even seizing people’s assets and freezing bank accounts. It’s not a pretty picture. The numerous bloodcurdling stories of IRS agents’ excesses have been well documented in the news media. Apparently they stop just short of the rubber hose.

Have Excessive Taxes Benefited the American People?

I don’t see any change in my lifestyle or how these backbreaking taxes have benefited myself, anyone in my family, or anyone else I know for that matter. But I must have missed something. I’m confident the money has been put to good use. I know – it was probably used for education – that must be the answer. But according to the Miami Herald, an estimated one to two million California students lack books to use in classrooms, and in poor urban districts teachers must often buy pencils, notebooks and marking pens with their own funds. The National Educators Association estimates that the average teacher spends $589 per year buying these items for the classroom.

Former U.S. Secretary of Education Roderick Paige stated that,

“After spending $125 billion of Title I (improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged) money over 25 years, we have virtually nothing to show for it.”

I guess that isn’t the answer. Well, it must be the war on poverty. With all of that money spent ($8.9 trillion and rising rapidly – that’s trillion, not billion), at least I’m sure we have alleviated the poor people’s plight, but according to the Associated Press, 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003. Oh, oh, I must be confused since that’s not the answer.

Where Is the Money Going?

Then where is this money being used for any benefit? Who is getting this money besides the corrupt political machines and benefactors of the Federal, state and city piggy banks? There has been heavy press about the government’s war on drugs with the government spending over $75 billion to no avail. It has been well documented what a colossal failure that effort has been. For another, I absolutely know that the Defense Department budget has increased dramatically over the years. Finally, our soldiers, sailors and airmen are making a decent wage. But according to a recent Defense Department study, 40% of lower ranking personnel are eligible for food stamps. We can concede that the majority of the money is going to the defense contractors such as the $14 billion expended on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle before the first prototype was ever built. See” Defense Contracting Rip-Off” for an in-depth exposure of this national disgrace. Obviously, that’s not the answer, either.

According to the Orange County Register, when local police, fire and other agencies complained that terrorist alerts were costing money that was not budgeted, the Department of Homeland Security (the new Federal agency) decided to cough up $200 million to help defray the costs. Now remember that this money was intended to reimburse local governments for terrorism-specific expenditures. Where did the money go? A newspaper surveyed the allocation of $15.9 million in funds given to California, and found that San Francisco and some universities and colleges used the money to cover the costs of policing anti-war protests. Oakland used their allocation to cover a high-school protest against the Iraq War, while the California National Guard, which actually patrols some of the state’s airports and bridges during the alerts, received 10% of the money that was requested. Unfortunately, the amount of money that was earmarked to reimburse local government for the intended purpose was never determined, but it’s likely it was very, very small.

Another trivial item to consider is that according to the U. S. Treasury, the national debt as of 2004 is $7.4 trillion – yes, $7.4 trillion, and the U. S Government spends $318 billion each year just on interest payments, almost equal to the entire Defense Department budget. The national debt is a burden of over $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the land. If you take into account only wage earners, each one of us owes over $50,000 – I would hate to see that bill in my mailbox.

As another perfect example of the debacle known as the great Democratic vs. Republican 2004 presidential election, Senator Kerry continued to challenge President Bush on homeland security, after President Bush had explained about his increase in the Homeland Security Department spending. Senator Kerry stated that although the budget had been increased, the money was not being spent wisely and the United States was not any safer. Instead of just scrutinizing the Homeland Security Department, why didn’t he put his vast knowledge to work carefully dissecting the monies wasted by the Defense Department, Health, Education and Welfare, Agriculture and the Veteran’s Administration? I’m sure he would have been able to find lots of excessive examples to throw at President Bush.

Examples of State Government Spending Stupidity

Representative Example 1 – Sports Arenas

There are many examples of the excesses of state governments and their spending stupidities, but I guess the one example that really infuriates me is the use of public funding to build sports arenas. I assume this a throwback to the days of the Romans when they built elaborate complexes, such as the Coliseum, which were funded by taxes, to distract the plebeians from the real issues they faced in their daily lives. These arenas were the scene of garish spectacles of pain and suffering with gladiators cutting each other to pieces or the lions devouring Christians. Not much has changed in 2,000 years. The difference today is that we now have expensive sports like hockey practiced in these arenas wherein the brutal exhibition of talent is more akin to fist fighting on skates instead of in the traditional boxing ring. Well at least we haven’t lost our passion for gore over the last 2,000 years. And not only that, we have lost our perspective of the value of a dollar due to the gross spending habits of the government. We pay overgrown children $15 million a year to play infantile games while the president of the United States is paid $400,00 per year, a slightly more important job.

In the last 20 years or so, various professional sports franchises have threatened to leave a given metropolitan area that possess a large and often maniacal fan base, unless they were given glistening new stadiums with lots of amenities such as luxury boxes to fatten their wallets.

I have one thing to say these sports teams – GOODBYE – I don’t respond well to threats and bribery! Maybe I’ll get lucky and the New York Giants football team will move to Tuscumbia, Missouri.

Involvement in sports is a classic example of government deviating significantly away from the business of running government, which we witness more and more on a daily basis. Numerous stadiums have been built with a combination of public and private funds, with the investment of public funds justified by the jobs and taxes that supposedly will be realized from the venture. To fund these ventures, cities and states have floated bond issues and even raised the sales tax ½-cent just to pay for new pagan structures. And remember that the politicians tell the people that the ½-cent increase will be rescinded when the stadium is up and running, which you can be assured, will never happen in your lifetime.

Newark Arena

Let’s examine just one example of this trend, the proposed Newark Arena in Newark, New Jersey, as it is the most current example in the news as I write this book. With an estimated cost of $310 million (which continually escalates higher each day), the costs are to be borne by the City of Newark ($210 million) and the New Jersey Devils hockey team ($100 million). The grand plan is for the arena to be used to host not only hockey games but also circuses, shows and ice shows. It’s hard to expect this venture will be a booming success since the new arena will compete with the Continental Airlines Arena, Madison Square Gardens, Radio City Music Hall, and other new facilities on the drawing boards.

One very important aspect of this deal that no one mentions for fear (no doubt) of offending political correctness is that many parts of Newark are outright slums with high crime rates. I doubt that many New Jerseyans will consider attending night games at the arena unless heavy security is in place.

Where will Newark get the money to invest in this project? The City of Newark reached a lease deal with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for Newark Liberty International Airport.

Note that the airport after 9/11 was renamed from Newark International Airport to Newark Liberty International Airport no doubt in a patriotic fervor. Let’s be realistic. Does that name change inspire your patriotism in any way? – Of course not! No one mentions the millions of dollars that were spent putting up new signs, stationary, and all of the hundreds of other tasks that are necessary when a massive undertaking of this nature is mandated by the bureaucrats. Only government can throw taxpayer money to the wind in an empty gesture without first considering the financial consequences.

As part of that lease deal the city of Newark is receiving a $210 million payment. Realistically, who are the major benefactors of this grandiose plan? Naturally, the construction companies and labor unions, which just happen to be major contributors to the Democratic machine run by Sharpe James, the Mayor of Newark, are the primary beneficiaries. This of course assumes that the final price for the arena will be $310 million. The history of sports stadium construction suggests that an overrun of between 40-50% is par for the course. And who will pick up those additional costs? I’ll bet it won’t be the hockey team. I can just visualize a bond issue being floated before the people now to pick up the tab.

According to initial projections, the City of Newark is supposed to recoup its investment from the tax base created in this deal. Developers have stated that they expect the arena to generate $135 million in salaries for employees (Naturally, $60 million of that is in player’s salaries and the rest in low-paying part-time concessionaire wages). There was supposed to be a 275,000 square foot office complex but the existence of that part of the proposal seems to be somewhat fuzzy. Since the city has a 1% payroll tax, simple math tells us that the best the city may be able to reap will be $1.35 million per year into their coffers. Let’s do a little math - the numbers don’t lie. $1.35 million divided into $210 million means that for the city to recoup its investment (not counting inflation), the arena must be profitable for 155 years and that’s hardly likely, especially considering a life of 25 years is the norm for any comparable venture. If the City of Newark is instead trying to justify the deal on the basis of the wonderful new jobs it will create, it’s a losing proposition from any angle you approach it.

In the fall of 2004, the owners of the National Hockey League have locked out the players because they are demanding more revenue sharing, displaying the routine greed of sports figures. The owners have said, “Enough is enough!” There is a strong possibility that either the entire league will fold or after the lockout is resolved, many teams will go out of business leaving a minimal league to pick up the pieces. To add to the stupidity, isn’t this the perfect time for the government to shell out $210 million to build a new hockey stadium?

According to a book written on the subject, “Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit”:

“Field of Schemes introduces you to some real welfare kings. A used-car salesman turned baseball owner promises to pay for a new stadium out of his own pocket, if the state government just agrees to move a highway to clear the land. Several backroom deals later, the state is raising a quarter-billion dollars towards the stadium costs - and the team owner is getting his stadium scot-free.”

In September 2004, a grand rally promoting the Arena (supposedly a public hearing on the issue) was held in Newark with lots of hoopla and political grandstanding. Over 500 people attended including the owner of the Devils, civic leaders, political groupies, real estate entrepreneurs, construction workers and homeowners, who were all shown the Promised Land, no doubt. A majority of these people stand to make a nice buck from the transaction. Former Councilwoman Mildred Crump was one the few voices of reason stating that when the taxpayers were sold a bill of goods for the Newark Bears baseball stadium, all that much ballyhooed project did was produce a few menial jobs and a lot less income then was projected. Their income projections were based on an average attendance of 5,000 howling baseball fans at each game. To-date, attendance has averaged 900 people.

On top of all of this waste of money is the issue of Eminent Domain, by which government can take private property. To permit building the complex, 52 individuals and companies owning 102 parcels of land will be displaced. Newark is contributing city-owned land to the project, while also making land swaps with the larger landowners and completing buyouts of the smaller businesses that must be relocated. Some of these businesses have been in place since the early 1900s. No consideration is given to the hassle of relocating a business, the lost revenue during the relocation process, or the monies lost until they are able to rebuild their customer base, as the political gain pushes all those considerations aside.

But we should not be focusing on the pros and cons of the economics of these highly questionable deals. The real issue is why is the City of Newark spending $210 million of taxpayer dollars on at best a very chancy boondoggle when the cities’ schools are crumbling to the ground? On top of that, state taxpayers heavily subsidize these schools, more so than any other district in the state. Stories appear in the newspapers frequently about broken windows in these schools. The money could be better spent for education, especially to educate the people who would have made barely minimum wages in the concession stand booths. I find it hard to envision that the people of Newark can be that stupid, but even after one stadium was a total failure; here they are repeating their mistake again.

The old adage immediately comes to mind:

“You can fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a second time, shame on me.”

Virginia Baseball Stadium

A similar situation is evolving in Virginia at about the same time for a new $360 million baseball stadium, except the creative geniuses want to use “Moral Obligation Bonds” to finance the construction. Now this is an interesting twist to screw the taxpayers. Moral obligation bonds essentially guarantee that the state will make the debt service payments on the stadium in the event of default. There actually has been some debate in the State Assembly on whether the state should help finance a facility for a private business. Will we never learn? As I said before, government has no business feeding the Christians to the lions.

We can draw the following firm conclusions from this or any tainted deal to build an arena or stadium.

1. Government has enough trouble running government without being involved in ventures that should be handled solely by private capital.

2. If the deal is so wonderful, why is it that the sports group (the Devils or anybody else) can’t raise sufficient money through investment capital firms to build the arena? The answer is because investors realize that the project will not provide adequate Return on Investment (ROI), i.e., it’s a loser without public funds!

3. Contrary to many people’s opinions, the government is not in the business of job creation. That is the job of the free-enterprise market.

For the people who complain about tax cuts, I offer that there’s plenty of room for budget reductions.

Examples of Federal Government Spending Stupidity

Before we examine nonsensical Federal government expenditures, remember that in the past we have all felt comfortable when the presidency and Congress was in the hands of the Republicans, for at least we knew they claim to want limited government. That is, until reality set in and now the Republicans are just as irresponsible as the Democrats. Federal spending has increased by 29% in the last three years. No one seems to care about the $500 billion deficit in 2004, with projections just about as high for the remainder of George Bush’s term in office. So let’s see what “critical” items are included in this budget.

Representative Example 1 – “Pork” in Every Budget

We’ll examine the Federal government’s fiscal year 2003 budget and exclude what on the surface appear to be legitimate spending requests and instead concentrate on what has commonly been called “Pork.” Pork-barrel projects are essentially projects congressmen add to a budget to buy support from the folks back home or to keep a pal in business. Let us not forget when debating the relative merit of a Democrat versus a Republican, with the close balance of seats in both the Senate and House of Representatives, none of these bills can be passed unless there is great collusion between the members regardless of which political party they represent. Rep. Joe Democrat tells Rep. Mike Republican, “If you want your defense bill passed, then you had best vote for my education bill.”

Not only does this political maneuvering apply to basic requests from say the Defense Department or the Department of Housing, Education and Welfare (HEW), it also applies to the billions of dollars of money wasted on “pork” legislature for mostly insignificant and unnecessary projects just to buy future votes. According to the Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.com), our elected representatives, who are supposed to be fiscally responsible, added 9,362 projects in the 13 appropriations bills of 2003 at a cost of $22.5 billion. Remember now, you diehard Democratic and Republican rooters, none of these bills can be passed without at least tacit support of both parties.

Out of the 9,362 projects that can hardly be classified as “essential” to the American people, we’ll briefly review a few examples in each category of Congress’ spending that ignores the burden of the American people.

Agriculture: $44,239,000 for projects in the state of Iowa including:

$33,000,000 for the National Animal Disease Center
$700,000 for the Midwest Poultry Consortium
$280,000 for the Iowa Vitality Center.

Commerce, Justice and Judiciary: $76,570,000 for projects in South Carolina for Senate Commerce Appropriations Chairman Ernest Hollings, including:

$1,500,000 for shrimper assistance
$1,000,000 for oyster recovery
$500,000 for seafood marketing.

Defense: In a speech before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 28, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated in part,

“…We are doing two things: First, we are not treating the taxpayers’ dollars with respect—and by not doing so, we risk losing their support, and …Second, we are depriving the men and women of our Armed Forces of the training, equipment and facilities they need to accomplish their missions. They deserve better….”

I’m sure we have all read the stories of how the GI’s in Iraq were writing home asking their relatives to ship them wipes to use for toilet purposes. More importantly, many soldiers complain they have no body armor (flak jackets), secure phones to communicate or protective armor on the Humvees and Bradley personnel carriers. Based upon Rumsfeld’s explanation of the government’s priorities to support our soldiers, I’m hopeful that all of the astronomical sums of money were directed just for these purposes.

Let’s examine a few of the allocations. The state of Hawaii under Senator Daniel Inouye received $226,275,000 for dubious projects, while $5,300,000 was allocated for the National Automotive Center in Michigan, and $3,000,000 was added to the existing Tanker Lease Program to lease 100 – Boeing 767 fuel tankers at a total cost of between $26 and $30 billion. The General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended as an alternative that the existing fleet of KC-135 tanker aircraft could be upgraded, modernized and repairs accomplished for about $3.2 billion, a savings of between $23 and $26 billion. So why was that suggestion ignored? Because the military always wants shiny new toys at any cost. The military uses the tried and true, “We can’t defend the country without it” argument to get their way. Let’s put the $26 billion in perspective. If the military followed through on the suggestion to simply modernize the KC-135 tanker fleet, the money saved could be given as bonuses to the approximately 2,000,000 active duty and reserve personnel who daily put their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. As mind-boggling as it may seem, each individual would receive a one-time bonus of about $13,000. Considering the fact that a private with 2 years of service makes $14,000 per year and a sergeant makes $20,000 per year, a bonus of this magnitude would be very welcome news indeed. If we eliminate just one of these ill conceived boondoggles each year, we could substantially increase the salaries of our warriors. Do the defenders of the nation whom we put in harm’s way daily not deserve the best we can provide them? If you don’t like the bonus idea, simply eliminate the expenditure from the budget thereby reducing the national debt by .00000001%, which will make my heart flutter with joy.

District of Columbia: $19,000,000 for projects including:

· $250,000 for the Washington Opera Education and Community Program

· $250,000 for Values First to implement a values infusion program

· $100,000 for Project Reality for the Game Plan abstinence program.

Energy and Water: $218,053,000 for projects in South Carolina for Senate Commerce Appropriations Chairman Ernest Hollings (yes, that’s the same guy we mentioned in the Commerce category), including:

· $216,000,000 for cleanup of the Savannah River site

· $396,000 for Town Creek

· $257,000 for the Folly River (aptly named no doubt).

Foreign Operations: $25,000,000 for the International Fund for Ireland in support of the Anglo-Irish accord. The key verbiage within this bill states “those projects that hold the greatest potential for job creation and equal opportunity for the Irish people.” Do we not have enough problems holding onto our jobs in this country with outsourcing without spending $25 million on a foreign country to take our jobs? The other bills in this category ranged from $500,000 to $4,000,000.

Interior: $38,250,000 for projects in Alaska for Senator Ted Stevens including:

· $750,000 for sea otter research

· $350,000 for backcountry hut repairs

· $250,000 for the Iditarod National Historic Trail

· $150,000 for the Alaska Whaling Commission.

I attempted to investigate the $350,000 for backcountry hut repairs. According to the Department of the Interior, “The funds provided for construction of backcountry huts in Alaska shall be used to contract with the Alaska Mountain and Wilderness Huts Association at Snow River to perform the work.” Why do I strongly suspect that one of his buddies or major contributors is somehow involved in this effort?

Labor, Health, Human Services and Education: $83,329,000 added for 239 projects alone in the state of Pennsylvania to satisfy the political cronies of Senator Arlen Specter and his fellow Republican and Democratic state office holders.

$36,101,000 for projects in Iowa for Senator Tom Harkins and House appropriator Tom Latham including:

· $2,000,000 for the Iowa Communications Network statewide fiber optics demonstration

· $250,000 for Family Communications Inc.

· $300,000 for Iowa State University for the Universal Kitchen Design Project.

Legislature Branch: Members of Congress have taken steps to improve security after 9/11, but many of the items approved in these bills have nothing to do with security:

· $5,065,000 for the Capital building

· $1,750,000 for Senate office buildings (nothing to do with security)

· $120,000 for the Botanic Garden (nothing to do with security).

I could go on and on, but I don’t believe you want to see the complete list of 9,362 projects that are absolutely unnecessary for America. I’m sure you got the message loud and clear. If each and every one of these projects were put before a vote of the American people, I suspect that one or maybe two projects might survive the hatchet.

For the people who complain about tax cuts, I offer that there’s plenty of room for budget reductions.

Representative Example 2 – Mid-Year Budget Pork

In November 2004, the government approved a mid-year budget increase of $388 billion covering many seemingly valid budget items, but they also managed to include the mandatory “pork” items as well.

Out of the $388 billion, the amount of “pork” may seem to be a trifle but it’s coming out of our pockets. We taxpayers would not spend this money, so why should we allow our congressional representatives to ignore our wishes and deliberately give money away to placate their congressional districts.

Again, thanks to the Citizens Against Government Waste, the items that stand out like a sore thumb are distributed to many states:

State	Budget Item
Alabama	$4 million for the International Fertilizer Development Center; $35,000 for the Sports Hall of Fame.
Alaska	$443,000 to develop salmon-fortified baby food; $1.5 million for the Anchorage Museum-Transit Intermodal Depot.
California	$150,000 for the Girl Scouts Golden Valley Council bridge project.
Florida	$1 million for the Palm Coast Trail System.
Kansas	$100,000 for a municipal swimming pool.
Kentucky	$2.3 million for an animal waste management research laboratory.
Hawaii	$4 million for mitigation of congestion in Kapolei City.
Illinois	$1.4 million for a sound barrier on Interstate 55.
Maine	$300,000 for the Great Falls parking garage .
Massachusetts	$1.2 million for Cape Cod bike repair.
Mississippi	$750,000 for the Mississippi Museum of Natural History.
Missouri	$1.5 million for the Rep. Richard Gephardt archive at the Missouri Historical Society.
Montana	$1.5 million for a “fuels-in-school” biomass project.
North Carolina	$1 million for the Garden Parkway.
Ohio	$750,000 for a sewer construction project; $350,000 for a music education project at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; $200,000 for the Dennison Railroad Depot Museum.
Oregon	$6.28 million to Oregon State University for wood utilization research; $628,000 for a barley gene mapping project.
Pennsylvania	$250,000 to promote tourism in the Allegheny National Forest area.
Tennessee	$2 million for the Fiery Gizzard Trail.
Vermont	$500,000 for a woods product program.
Virginia	$500,000 for the Amherst County River Walk Trail; $200,000 for a Vermont Civil War Monument in Virginia.
Washington	$1 million for the Enumclaw Welcome Center; $1 million for the Norwegian American Foundation.
Wisconsin	$3.2 million for the Chequamego-Nicolet National Forest .

What makes these perfect examples of patronage somewhat different is that members of Congress actually stood up and complained about this farce. Senator John McCain of Arizona gave a half-hour speech on the floor of the Senate in which he targeted specific examples of the egregious waste of money exhibited by his fellow senators. He singled out the $1 million allocated for the Wild American Shrimp initiative by stating, “I am hoping that the appropriators could explain to me why we need $1 million for this. Are American shrimp that unruly and lacking initiative? Why does the U. S. Taxpayer need to fund this “No shrimp Left Behind Act?”

It’s about time someone spoke out about this persistent rip-off of the American taxpayer.

Representative Example 3 - $500 Baby Giveaway

Representative Harold Ford (Tennessee Republican) and Senators John Corzine (New Jersey Democrat) and Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania Republican) are among our clueless elected officials who are pushing a new bill in Congress in 2004 under the American Savings for Personal Investment, Retirement and Education (ASPIRE) Act to create a $500 savings account for each child born in the United States after December 31, 2005. In addition, the Federal government would put an additional $500 into accounts for children born to families with incomes below the Federal poverty line. According to Kansas State researchers, who should know better, the idea may work.

Why do I have a problem with this plan? Here’s just another example of one of thousands of government giveaway programs that march us onto the road to socialism and eventual bankruptcy, for one. Let’s look a little deeper. How much will this plan cost, how will it be administered, and will it really benefit the people? According to the World Factbook, in 2004 there were approximately 4,200,000 babies born in the United States. For a rough estimate, let’s assume 25% of those babies are born to families below the poverty line. That means the direct cost to the taxpayers is approximately $3 billion per year. But let us not forget about how many thousands of new Federal employees will be needed to manage this effort to add to the bloated bureaucracy? This is not a simple and straightforward task. That’ll probably add an additional $1/2 billion per year in labor costs assuming 2,500 new employees plus new computer systems, office space, etc., must be allocated to manage the effort.

I can just picture the problems with people trying to get their paws on an extra $500 with phony birth certificates. How will the bureaucrats verify that a request for the monies is valid? Can you just imagine the headaches this will cause in paper work for the people below the poverty line who must fill out garbled “governmentese” forms to request the extra $500? Who are these people? They are generally indigent, poorly educated souls who often cannot read or write. According to the plan, the money can be withdrawn once the child turns 18 and could be applied to education, home ownership or retirement. This gem of an idea will be a nightmare for government employees to verify how the money will be used. Can you just picture the difficulties people will encounter with the mindless bureaucracy trying to get their money with this complex idea? Assuming beyond belief that all will go well, in actuality, how much will the $500 buy towards a child’s college education? At today’s rates, $500 saved today will yield about $1,200 in 18 years, not discounting inflation which will cut that in half to about $600 in real dollars. According to the U. S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, the average cost of tuition and fees at a private college or university is over $18,000. So with the $600, your child may expect the benefit of ten days of education. This is another classic idea that looks good on paper, but will quickly become a gigantic boondoggle benefiting few of the people it intends to help, and of course waste another $3-4 billion. This “ain’t” chicken feed, folks. All of these expenditures add up to an awful lot of money. Even if we want to spend this additional money, which I don’t, we would be much better off reducing the national debt by .00000001 %.

For the people who complain about tax cuts, I offer that there’s plenty of room for budget reductions.

Representative Example 4 – U. S. Army Builds Fantasyland

We have Disney World, Six Flags, Universal Studios and Congress, where you can escape reality and dwell in Never-Never Land for a day to forget your troubles.

Take the kids out for an enjoyable day to a New York Giants football game and spend the equivalent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Romania so you can forget about your problems, your job, your annoying neighbor and your overdue property tax bill.

Now the U. S. Army can help, too. The Army is in the throes of building a $200 million museum on the grounds of Fort Belvoir, Virginia to help you pass the time. It’s not as if there might be any more pressing needs like the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, and what about those wipes for the troops in the field?

The pathetic excuse for this latest boondoggle is that the museum will offer Americans an understanding of what the life of the soldier is all about. The propaganda spews out that “everyone can identify with the trials and tribulations of the young men and women who put themselves in harm’s way to do a job that most of us don’t want to do ourselves.” I really hate it when the military bureaucrats flaunt patriotism to justify the expenditure of another exorbitant amount of money.

The proposed design envisions exhibit space for 515,000 art and historical artifacts, and all of the other accoutrements like restaurants and gift shops. The primary objective of this state-of-the-art facility is to show simulated battles and use 4-D (dimensional) simulators available in advanced amusement and theme parks. Yep, you guessed it. Universal Studios is a paid consultant. Want to bet it overruns the projected budget?

Here’s the clincher. The Army stated that the museum is NOT designed to encourage recruitment. What? I would have thought that would have been one of its’ primary goals considering the problems the military has in their recruitment drives now that we are fighting multiple wars.

I have my routine alternate suggestions on how to use that expenditure. For one, we could give all of our active duty troops each a $100 bonus check. Better yet, to accomplish the education of the public, I’ll make a 30-minute video of the proud history of the Army and mail it to the 100 million households in the country for about the same cost. But that’s too rational. In my scheme, you wouldn’t get to see Mickey, Minnie, Goofy or your Congressional representatives in-person.

For the people who complain about tax cuts, I offer that there’s plenty of room for budget reductions.

Numbers of Federal Government Employees

According to the Federal government, as of January 2004, excluding men and women in uniform, civilian employment is 2,701,015 employees. This number doesn’t include the state, city and local government employees that number over 16,000,000. Where do all of these Federal employees work? The biggest chunks are:

Legislative Branch (Congress and others) = 30,377

Judicial Branch = 34,333

Executive Branch:

Department of the Treasury = 117,215

Department of Defense = 663,380

Department of Justice = 102,903

Department of Agriculture = 100,457

Department of Veteran’s Affairs = 232,172

Independent Agencies = 963,890

As one minor example of the stupidity, the 50-odd independent agencies of nearly one million employees include critical needs such as (number of employees in parentheses):

African Development Foundation (26)
Barry Goldwater Scholarship/Excellence in Education Foundation (3)
Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation (2)
Commission on Fine Arts (8)
U. S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (228)
Japan-United States Friendship Commission (8).

The number of employees in these few agencies I’ve mentioned is only the proverbial drop in the bucket, but as an example what is the government doing with a Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation or engaging in the fine arts business? I would love to see the justification for the two hundred twenty-eight employees of the U. S. Holocaust Memorial Museum or the eight employees in the Japan-United States Friendship Committee.

Department of Agriculture

Let’s examine just one of these major departments, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), with over 100,000 employees consisting of the following sub-agencies and offices:

Sub-Agencies	Offices
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)	Civil Rights (CR)
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)	Departmental Administration (DA)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)	National Appeals Division (NAD)
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP)	Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA)
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)	Office of the Chief Economist (OCE)
Economic Research Service (ERS)	Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
Farm Service Agency (FSA)	Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)	Office of Communications (OC)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)	Office of Congressional Relations (OCR)
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)	Office of the Executive Secretariat (OES)
Forest Service (FS)	Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)	Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
National Agricultural Library (NAL)
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Risk Management Agency (RMA)
Rural Development (RD)

Just look at this massive organization. Do we really need all of these sub-agencies and offices, like the Agricultural Marketing Service and a Risk Management Agency?

In my review of the USDA’s web site, I cannot find one concise statement of the purpose of this organization, or as we would call it in the business world, a “mission statement.” Instead, the web site lays a public relations campaign on the visitor. According to the USDA, “USDA remains committed to helping America’s farmers and ranchers.”

A few other tidbits of propaganda are as follows:

· “USDA brings housing, modern telecommunications, and safe drinking water to rural America.

· USDA helps ensure open markets for U.S. agricultural products and provides food aid to needy people overseas. “

The question needs to be asked, “Was it the intention of the Founding Fathers to have an agriculture organization which ”brings housing, modern telecommunications, and safe drinking water to rural America” and ”helps ensure open markets for U.S. agricultural products?” Housing, telecommunications, helps ensure open markets? All three of these items are the sole responsibility of the free enterprise market. These examples are another inkling of just how far another government organization has deviated from the primary role of the Federal Government as defined by our Constitution. I will venture a guess that if we compare the responsibilities of the USDA versus the Constitution, this organization should have no more than 5,000 employees.

The Veteran’s Administration (VA)

The Veteran’s Administration employs 232,000 people serving 26 million veterans and their dependents. Even with a budget of $64 billion, there are over 200,000 veterans who must wait 6 months or more for access to VA health facilities. I assume they are waiting for a veteran to die so he or she can be replaced in the system. On the positive side, the VA provides education, insurance, counseling, health care and rehabilitation, pensions, home loans, and burial benefits. On the negative side, in the last few years, a number of my associates and I have filed disability claims against the government for Vietnam-related service including exposure to Agent Orange and other toxic agents. Why does it take this massive organization 12 to 18 months to process the claim? Not only that, representatives of the Vietnam Veteran’s of America and the Disabled American Veterans strongly advise claimants to keep copies of every piece of paper they submit, as the VA will likely lose the paper work one or more times during the course of the process. If the VA was a commercial enterprise, they would have citizen’s groups and lawyers clamoring for someone’s scalp, but you can’t sue the government.

After one of my associates waited nearly a year, he received a letter from the VA stating that his claim had been rejected EVEN THOUGH HE MET ALL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE CLAIM. Why did the VA reject the claim? They stated that he should have filed the claim within one year of leaving Vietnam. Is my associate responsible for being tardy? The side effects of Agent Orange were not recognized until 20 years after that conflict ended, so I can only guess that in order to pass VA muster, besides being a killing machine, you needed to be a physic.

Lobbyists – No Wonder We Have No Voice

Our Congressional representatives rarely listen to the people unless that voice is backed up by large cash contributions from organizations in their home districts. But that isn’t the worst-case scenario. Lobbyists represent every conceivable organization on the planet from the National Rifle Association (NRA), AARP, pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors, school teachers, healthcare providers, pension plans, telecommunications firms, and anybody who has a vested interest in insisting that particular legislation is either passed for their benefit or quietly buried under the table for later discussion. In Washington, D.C. alone there are over 12,000 registered lobbyists, but various estimates suggest that there may be in excess of 50,000 lobbyists providing all sorts of gratuities for our dedicated civil servants. These companies and organizations are not paying the salaries and expenses of these 50,000 lobbyists if the payoff for them on the other end isn’t enormous. Now we all know that outright gifts to our representatives are illegal but that doesn’t stop the fleecing of the taxpayers so our representatives can take fully paid trips to Fiji for security conferences and golf outings and who knows what other dubious expenses. What chance do we have of getting meaningful legislation passed when confronted by this bottomless pit of political pandering? Herein is just another reason why we must return the government to the people.

Wherein Lies the Problem?

I may burn in the fires of hell from the response of politicians, government officials, and the rank and file for the following statements, but I’m sure we have all heard the horror stories about government employees who work an hour a day, or don’t show up for work at all and just collect a paycheck. Better yet, what about those employees who are dismissed for egregious job performance and then fight their dismissal and continue getting paid for the years it takes to resolve their complaint. I apologize to the small percentage of government employees who do put their nose to the grindstone to earn a day’s pay. If government control of many aspects of our lives is so beneficial, why does the U.S. Postal Service use FedEx to ship most of their overnight mail? Why? 1) Because it’s cheaper and 2) FedEx employees have an incentive to work hard unlike the sterile environment of government civil service where it’s almost impossible to fire a Federal employee because of arcane civil service regulations. The paper work justification that a supervisor must develop over a lengthy period of time to get an employee fired is literally insurmountable, especially if the employee is a minority. Not only is this process demeaning and counterproductive, it detracts from the supervisor doing his or her primary job.

Getting A Government Job

From the time I was a little boy, I can recall the conversations between various adults recommending that an individual get a job with government. “The pay may not be great but you won’t need to work very hard.” Even in the last few weeks, I have been told stories about a friend who took a job with the State of New Jersey. Over too many martinis, he admitted to his friends that he works a maximum of one hour a day.

My own personal experiences echo these sentiments. I cannot recall how many times as a small businessman I have interacted with government employees to my dismay. In one instance, I needed to obtain a business license for the county of Middlesex in New Jersey. I entered the government office in the typically garish, intimidating, marble complex surrounded by platoons of cops where there were 10 to 12 employees “working” in the office. I strongly suspect that the cops were there not to protect the building from terrorists but more likely to protect the workers from irate citizens. The office employees seemed to show annoyance at the mere fact that I required assistance. After a few minutes, one individual (without rising from her chair), hollered over to me at the counter, “What do you need?” I explained to her that I wanted to apply for a business license. She told me to open the mammoth binders on the bookshelves to determine if the name I had selected was already in use, and if I found the name to be unique, I should fill out the application. She quickly returned to reading her book. I followed her instructions to a tee which consumed about one-half hour for the painstaking search process and completion of the application. I then needed to interrupt her semi-comatose state to complete the transaction. I exited the premises fuming about the encounter. Do you think this attitude would be permissible in a private business? This was not an isolated incidence. It seems to be business (or lack of business) as usual.

Dealing With Incompetent Government Bureaucracies

For those fools who are constantly clamoring for greater government services, beware! You may get what you wish for! I strongly suspect that if the City of New York decided to “privatize” the service, we would all be able to get a copy of a certificate as a “walk in” in 30 minutes for $5.00.

The bottom line of the private versus public job sector is that there is no accountability in government when you are unhappy with a government employee’s performance? It makes little difference when you complain because they are protected by the archaic rules of the Civil Service.

How Can We Stop This Cancer?

Politicians count on the fact that we are overwhelmed by the sheer size of both the state and the Federal budget. When they infrequently talk in terms of thousands of dollars, that’s fine with us, because it’s something we can all relate to, as most of us buy houses and cars in that ballpark. But a billion dollars? Or even a trillion dollars? Few of us can visualize what one billion dollar bills stacked end-to-end in a large vault would look like. Let us remember the famous quote from the late Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.”

How can we little guys fight back? We don’t have time to analyze every bill and budget item to determine if we agree or disagree with the expenditure. We don’t have the knowledge to sift through hundreds of pages of budget explanations to sort out the validity about each item, especially when the justification is most likely written in governmentese. Besides, we all thought that’s why we elect representatives to state legislatures and Congress. That’s what they are supposed to do, but their failure to do so borders on a national disgrace, because they’re too busy approving each other’s favorite pork projects to buy votes back home in their own districts.

What are Journalist’s Priorities?

Who can be the watchdog we all need? Journalists, that’s who. Over the years, I’ve rarely seen extensive articles about the budget in the major newspapers. Why can’t journalists spend the time and dissect the budget PRIOR to its approval and let us know where are taxes are being spent so we can scream and kick about many unnecessary expenditures. First of all, the newspaper kingpins have already decided it won’t sell papers. I don’t understand that attitude – it smacks of Pulitzer Prize material in the making. I’m sure that they believe that people would rather read about violence and gore or maybe watch reality TV shows or even sports events. Secondly, maybe the newspapers have a vested interest in not aggravating too many politicians.

In 2004, there was an article by a columnist for the New Jersey Star-Ledger that touched on the fringes of this subject. It’s the first article I can recall reading about the budget during the course of the year. Columnist Fran Woods wrote an article, “Stay Put in the Senate and Steer Clear of Trenton,” in which she recommended that Senator Jon Corzine not seek the soon to be vacated seat of outgoing Governor James McGreevey. She suggested that the Senator would only assume the blame for the budget mess in the state.

She proceeded to say that:

“Rightly or wrongly, even many New Jerseyans who love the state perceive it as rife with corruption, burdensome in its property taxes, more overcrowded every year and saddled with excessive debt.”

A few paragraphs later she literally contradicts herself.

“The alternative is to cut costs. But for all the talk about ‘waste in government,’ that’s small change. To cut $4 billion, which the next governor might have to do without additional revenues or another huge bonding scheme, we’d have to close libraries, kill school programs, and eliminate bridge repairs and worse.”

She refers to “waste in government” as “small change.” Who bought you the crystal ball? I suspect there is much larger waste. I have a gut suspicion that maybe the waste is $10 billion. And why does every politician and newspaper columnist automatically invoke the dreaded “we’ll close libraries, kill school programs….” argument every time there’s a budget crisis? I’m sure there are plenty of places we can take a sharp knife to the budget by tap dancing around the letters “L” or “S.” But that’s precisely the point. Why aren’t you and your cohorts taking a hard look at where our money goes? Analyze the budget and track the actual expenditures in much the same way as a professional auditing firm. Find out if people are actually on the payroll. Then let us know what horrors you’ve discovered.

Give me that budget for 90 days and I’ll come up with a budget with $4 billion less in expenditures, and maybe I’ll find that $10 billion I bellowed about.

Our representatives are like a kid in a candy store, eyeing up all of the goodies they can buy as if they had all of the money in the world. Except instead of the kid only spending a dollar to buy his favorite confection, our representatives want to play rich kids and buy everything, for it’s only taxpayer money that they are throwing to the wind. When our income is reduced as individuals, what do we do? We don’t buy that new car or buy that new appliance in the kitchen. But not government – we need all of it now. We must learn to prioritize and drastically reduce our spending in government just as most of us do in our own lives.

Are the People Fighting Back?

All hope is not lost. In the traditionally liberal state of Massachusetts (“Taxachusetts”), according to the National Taxpayers Union, a very small and under-funded campaign to repeal the state’s income tax almost succeeded, with 45% of the people voting for repeal. This must have frightened the hell out of the politicians.

If you are one of the millions of Americans who is disgusted by the ever-increasing tax burden imposed on us by indifferent bureaucrats, you might be interested to know that in some circles you are considered nothing less than a criminal or white racist. According to the Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network, an arm of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the tax protest movement is “an anti-government movement that believes that income taxes are illegitimate, (with)… some white supremacist elements.” They also state that the “overall level of criminal activity is high, consisting mostly of attempts at tax evasion. Some tax protesters have engaged in large-scale scams and frauds.” Are these words written by sane and intelligent people?

In a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison in January 1787, Jefferson stated:

“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of good government.”

Let me repeat that last sentence – “It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of good government.” Left unchecked, government will grow like a cancer until we’re all 6 feet under.

History of American Tax Rebellions

Tax protests are not new to the American spirit.

Shay’s Rebellion: One of the most publicized early tax rebellions was called “Shay’s Rebellion,” named after Captain Daniel Shays, a veteran of the Revolutionary War. A severe economic depression in Western Massachusetts forced many people into court, and then into jail for non-payment of debt. The merchants of Boston demanded hard currency (generally gold) as they had bills to pay in foreign countries. The farmers, who were hard hit by the economic times, circulated petitions to address their grievances. The rebellion demanded the use of paper currency, lower taxes, and reform of the judicial process. When the non-violent approach failed, the farmers fought back with an armed uprising in 1786-1787, in which they initially stormed the Court of Common Pleas throughout the state effectively shutting down this body. Their goal was to stop the debtor’s trials and imprisonment. The Massachusetts governor assembled 4,400 militiamen to combat the insurgents. In a series of gun battles, Captain Shays and a number of the leaders soon surrendered. The Supreme Judicial Court sentenced fourteen of the leaders to death for treason. The new governor, John Hancock, later pardoned them after two of the leaders had already been hung.

California’s Proposition 13: Perhaps the most recent and successful tax protest in the 20^th century was Proposition 13 in California. On June 6, 1978, California voters passed a new law setting tax limits and voting on future tax increases. Under the law, property taxes are set at 1% of assessed valuation of the property. The law also required that a two-thirds majority would be required to increase state taxes, and henceforth a vote of the people was required to increase local taxes. Many opponents argued that due to the lower tax revenues, the school system would quickly degrade to unacceptable levels, which has not occurred. Since its inception 25 years ago, recent polls indicate that the people would overwhelming approve the same proposition if put to a vote today.

Recent Mini-Tax Rebellions

Let’s examine other mini-tax rebellions that are occurring across the nation as you read this:

· Perhaps in memory of Shay’s Rebellion, in 2001 taxpayers took to the streets of Nashville to protest the planned state income tax in Tennessee by storming the capital shouting “No new taxes”, causing the legislature to abandon the plan.

· Voters in northern Virginia defeated a proposal to add a half-cent to the regions sales tax to resolve the area’s traffic congestion problems.

· After three successive years of tax increases the citizens of Livonia, Michigan finally said enough is enough, and rejected a tax increase to provide equipment and personnel in the Police and Fire Departments.

· In Great Chebeague Island in Maine, a property tax revolt brought out 140 residents to protest town-wide revaluation, which dramatically increased assessments for homes on the water, raising annual taxes beyond what the residents say they could afford.

· North Carolinians rained tea bags down on legislators considering $440 million worth of hikes to the state income and sales taxes.

Anti-Tax Web Sites

If you desire more information on the tax protest movement in this country, consult the following informative web sites:

Name	Web Site
Institute for Policy Innovation	www.ipi.org/
Americans for Tax Reform	www.atr.org/
Free Enterprise Society	www.freeenterprisesociety.ws
National Taxpayers Union	www.ntu.org/main/
National Center for Policy Analysis	www.ncpa.org/
Project Vote Smart	www.vote-smart.org/

Project Vote Smart’s – Americans for Tax Reform offers voters a self-defense manual that may be downloaded from their web site.

Rating the Politicians

In addition, this group provides ratings from 0 to 100, where 0 is the worst possible rating, of each member of Congress on their voting records on taxes. A random sampling of some of the Congressmen/Congresswomen who received disastrous 0 ratings are:

Name	State	Name	State
Rep. Raul M. Grijalvaa	Arizona	Sen. Christopher J. Dodd	Conn.
Sen. Barbara Boxer	California	Rep. Robert Wexler	Florida
Rep. Lynne Woolsey	California	Rep. Alcee L. Hastings	Florida
Rep. George Miller	California	Rep. John R. Lewis	Georgia
Rep. Barbara Lee	California	Rep. Tom Harkin	Iowa
Rep. Pete Stark	California	Rep. Jesse Louis Jackson	Illinois
Rep. Mike Honda	California	Rep. Luis V. Gutierriz	Illinois
Rep. Brad J Herman	California	Rep. Jan Schakowsky	Illinois
Rep. Hilda Solis	California	Rep. Lane A. Evans	Illinois
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard	California	Rep. Peter Visclosky	Indiana
Rep. Maxine Waters	California	Rep. Julia Carson	Indiana
Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano	California	Sen. Ted Kennedy	Mass.

Congressional Representatives With 0 (“Zero”) Tax Ratings

No wonder California is in trouble with their budget year after year. What it most revealing about the above statistics is every one of the Senators and representatives shown in the table are Democrats, so perhaps the “tax and spend” label is well deserved.