Budget Cutting for Idiots, i.e. Congress

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of  the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government!
                                                         ---Thomas Jefferson

Did you know that  representative Shaddegg from Arizona has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he has been in the House of Representatives.  The Act would require congress to define exactly which of the 18 enumerated powers the Constitution gives the federal government justifies any law passed.  If nothing else, the act would force congressmen to study the Constitution.  Even after being introduced 15 times, each year since 1995, the Act has yet to make it out of committee.  I'll pause while you get up off the floor.  I know you are shocked.


Hopefully you are recovered now.  Another Texas representative has introduced a resolution that on September 17, Constitution Day; when every school receiving federal funds is required to spend at least part of the day studying the Constitution, Congress do the same.  To repeat, on September 17, all schools receiving federal funds are required to spend at least part of the day studying the Constitution.  Representative Conaway is suggesting that Congress also study the document, you know the one they swore to uphold and defend, on that one day as well.  His committee chairman said that was "the stupidest idea I've ever heard."  And do you know of any school that observes Constitution Day?  Or even knows of its existence?  It's been around since Robert Byrd (Democrat) introduced it in 2004 and it was passed as part of the Omnibus Spending Bill.  


Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lists the 18 enumerated powers.  The 10th Amendment states:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There's the easiest way to cut the federal budget.  Each line of the budget should have a reference to which of the Enumerated Powers justifies the spending.  No Enumerated Power, no funds.  Pretty simple.

Charity begins at home, at least in the conservative home

A conservative sees a poor homeless man and feels sympathy.  The conservative offers him a job, so he can earn money to get clean clothes and a place to live.  A liberal sees the same homeless man and feels compassion.  He turns to the conservative and says, "give him some of your money."  I read that years ago and I think it was attributed to Winston Churchill.  Of course, just about every humorous quote is attributed to either Churchill or Mark Twain.  

With all President Obama's plans to redistribute wealth and fundamentally change America,  I thought I would do a little research on charitable contributions of the wealthy and conservatives compared to liberals.  The president and the media would have us believe that the rich must be taxed to force them to contribute to society.  The only way the poor can survive is if the government takes money from the more fortunate (funny how that's an accepted description of the wealthy, as if it were all luck, education and hard work had nothing to do with their success).  

One of the neat things about people that run for or hold public office, their income tax filings are available to the public.  So, for a little history on charitable contributions.  The grandfather of all liberals, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave on average less than 2% of his annual income to charitable organizations.  Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon, who, by the way, did not come from a wealthy family like the Roosevelt dynasty, gave an average of 6% of his income to charity.  The Liberal Lion, Ted Kennedy gave less than 1.5% of income to charity in the years that he released his income tax statements.  I'm pretty sure he came from a fairly well-off family.  

For a little more recent history, President George W. Bush averaged just over Obama's threshold for the wealthy $250,000 per year in the years he was Texas governor and United States President.  In those years, he gave an average of 10% of his annual income to charity.  His vice-president, Beelzebub, I mean Dick Cheney, was inconsistent in his charitable contributions.  In one year reported, he gave 0.1%, but the following year gave over 77% (no decimal in there, 77%!!), for an average of 19% in the years reported.

The current holder of the vice president's office, Joe Biden, was very consistent.  Stingy, but consistently stingy.  In the past 10 years, he has given a low of 0.1% and a high of 0.3% of his income to charity.  And yes, those are decimals in there.  He has given an average of $369 a year to charity in that timeframe.  His boss, President Obama is, by comparison a regular philanthropist.  In 2000, when he ran for senate, he reported contributions of $2350, or 1% of his income.  Now, in total contradiction to his belief that the wealthy don't give more, last year when revenue from his two books produced an income of $4.2 million, he and Michelle gave $240,000, or 5.7%.  


National statistics from 2004 were the most recent I could find.  That year, 2/3 of Americans reported charitable contributions.  They gave an average of $2047 or 3% of their taxable income.  Citizens that made between $200,000 and $500,000 gave an average of almost $41,000 to charity, or just under 9.5%.  


The best way to redistribute wealth is to let those who earn the wealth decide how to distribute it.  That redistribution comes through jobs created and obviously through charitable contributions.  Let's keep the government out of the process!

Oh, I could mention that Jesse Jackson and Al Gore each averaged under 1% in the years they made their income taxes public.  But that would be going overboard in making the point.

I remember an old Saturday Night Live with Chevy Chase playing President Ford.  They did a skit with the debate between Ford and Carter during the election campaign.  Carter goes through a 2 minute dialogue about tax rates, oil company profits, and the effect of the cost of oil on the American economy.  When it is Ford's chance to respond, he has that blank stunned look that Chevy Chase did so well and says "um, they, uh, they promised me there would be no math."  I promise, no more math in my posts.
 

Dumping Money On the Ground

When I worked for Avis, we were required to take a class on responding to fuel spills.  The district manager said that since I had worked in and been around the oilfield when I was younger, I probably didn't need to take the class.  I told him that unless the proper response to a spill was to throw some dirt on it, I'd better take the class.

When I visited my grandparents for the summer when I was about 7, I went to work with my Grandpa Tom in the oilfield.  When the tanks are full, he would have to hire a truck to come out and haul all the oil to his buyer.  Since the cost of having the truck come out is the same no matter how much oil they haul, you would of course want to have as much oil as possible be taken in a trip.  A tank could be full, but still have a lot of saltwater in with the oil.  Oil sits on top of the saltwater (think oil spill in the Gulf, the oil stays on top). So, there was a valve on the bottom of the tank.  Grandpa would open this valve and let the saltwater spray out onto the ground.  It was my job to sit beside this spraying valve and watch for the saltwater to turn into oil.  Grandpa would go do his maintenance on the pumpjack or whatever else he needed to do.  I didn't want to let any oil spray out, that would be just like throwing away money.  So I sat staring at the brownish saltwater spraying, waiting it for it to change from coffee with cream color to coffee with no cream color.  When oil started spraying out, I would yell for Grandpa and he would close the valve to let the well produce for a couple of more days to maximize the truck's load of oil.  It was a great practice economically, but probably not so great environmentally.  Oily saltwater leaves an ugly mess on the ground.  

I think even the most environmentally insensitive oilman sees this as a bad practice today.  So, to a degree regulations were needed.  But, as is usually the case with government involvement, they went too far the other direction.  And if the federal government is involved, they will go waaaaaaaaaaaay too far.  And then go further.  And take a minute's break and go a little further.  Eventually they go so far that the producers do not make enough money to stay in business.  The Democrat/Progressive side seems to forget that the reason oil companies exist is to make a profit.  And in most cases, they will do it the right way, both for their profit margin and for the environment.  

Eighteen governors, two of them Democrats, have asked Congress to clamp down on the EPA.  They say that the EPA doesn't take the economic impact of their rulings into consideration when they impose new restrictions.  They have reached the point in some cases, where it is no longer profitable to stay in business.  As I mentioned in yesterday's post about the Grand Junction area, trickle down works in both directions.  When business is booming for the oil company, it is booming for the construction industry, the fast food industry, grocery stores, retailers, and yes, the government through sales, income, and property taxes.  Ever notice all the new schools, libraries, and jails get built during the boom years?  Then the EPA steps in with new regulations, and end the boom.  For everyone.  Including the government.  

I don't know if the current Congress has the spine, or even the inclination to stand up to the President and his anti-business policies.  But it is nice to see that the states are starting to push back.  Over the past 100 plus years, the states have let the federal government take too many of the powers the Constitution relegated to the states.  It will be very hard to get those powers back.  But it sure is good to see the process start.  Not only in the case of the EPA, but Utah has filed suit to prevent the federal government from taking more land and to try to take back the area that President Clinton took by executive action in his last days in office (southern Utah, rich with uranium, imagine that).  Montana, Texas, and others have filed or threatened to file suit over federal gun control laws.  Texas, Virginia, and others have started the process of challenging federal takeover of healthcare.  And with the recent verbal jabs by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at the president, I think the Supreme Court is signaling that it is ready to reign in some of the federal power grabs.  

Maybe the Supreme Court is that seven year old watching money spray out onto the ground.  It's time to shut off the valve.