“Action is Eloquence,” wrote Shakespeare.

Ron Paul’s actions – his legislation, his votes in Congress – are the only eloquence that matters.

Joseph Sobran calls for shrinking the federal government to the point where “it’s small enough to fit inside the Constitution.”

Ron Paul consistently votes to roll back and reduce the federal government. Every bill. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.

While other Republican Presidential candidates criticize and complain about federal government waste, overspending, and deficits – in vague and fuzzy words…

Congressman Ron Paul offers us a budget that dramatically reduces federal spending from this year’s $3.8 Trillion to $2.8 Trillion in 2013 – a $1 Trillion spending cut the first year of Ron Paul’s Presidency.

Dr. Ron Paul follows the Constitution. He always votes with the Constitution.

Especially on military and foreign policy issues.

Ron Paul votes for true American defense. For enough military might to defend America’s shores and soil, our people and property against foreign attackers and invaders.  But Ron Paul votes against Unconstitutional, undeclared wars.  He votes against military adventurism, interventionism, meddling, and gunboat diplomacy. Against sending American soldiers to kill or be killed, maim or be maimed in endless foreign wars.

Ron Paul votes for defense and peace.

Ron Paul votes to dramatically reduce the size, spending, taxes, power and authority of today’s Big Federal Government.

Ron Paul is the shining torch of liberty and small government in the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary.

Join us. Vote for, donate to, and support Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States.

Small government is possible,

Michael Cloud

President and Co-Founder

Center For Small Government

No related posts.

Now that he’s running for president, let’s compare his words with his deeds.

Taxes

Romney claims to be anti-tax. He even “took” a “no new taxes” pledge when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. “Took” is in quotes because he refused to sign that pledge. His signature wasn’t necessary, he claimed. He assured us that he’s a man of his word.

But Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes.

Mitt Romney proposed three new taxes while campaigning for governor: a new tax on vehicles, a new tax on campaign donations, and a new tax on building construction. They didn’t get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten.

Right before the 2002 election, he ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a “no new taxes” governor. The media refused to set the record straight.

But that was only the beginning.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn’t.

Mitt Romney denies that he raised taxes. He claims he only raised mandatory government “fees.” But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees.

Romney’s new tax-fees raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the state government every year.

In addition to:

• scores of new tax-fees,

Mitt Romney also increased several other taxes by:

• “closing loopholes” to enable collection of a new Internet sales tax
• passing legislation that enables local governments to raise Business Property Taxes
• enacting a new tax penalty that raises Income Taxes on both individuals and small businesses.

This, he claims, is not raising taxes.

I suppose you could say Romney merely enacted bills that force taxpayers to hand over billions of dollars – which end up in the coffers of the government.

Quacks like a tax increase?

In 2008, Romney boasted that he was the first presidential candidate to sign a “taxpayer protection pledge,” in which he promised to oppose “any and all efforts” to increase income taxes on people or businesses.

So he’ll call his tax increases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or something else. But if Romney is elected President of the United States, the IRS will collect all this additional money from you, your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

Government Spending

Mitt Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by “$2 billion.” Sometimes he claims he cut it “$3 billion.” The media gives him free advertising by parroting this myth repeatedly. They repeat it so often that even many fiscal conservatives and libertarians assume it must be true.

But these “cuts” were merely budget games. Spending cuts in one area were simply moved into another area of the budget.

In fact, not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.

The Massachusetts state statutory budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.

When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion - plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)

The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? $5.2 billion MORE in state spending - and a similar increase in new taxes and mandatory fees

Every year.

He claims to have done a good job as governor of liberal Massachusetts in light of the fact that it’s a “tough state” for poor “conservatives” like him. He infers his hands were tied by the predominantly Democratic legislature.

But when it comes to tax and spend policies, he’s not only in lockstep with the Democrats. He leads the way.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing an increase of about $1 billion in new government spending. Before the legislature even named a budget figure.

Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding.

The legislature responded with a handful of line item budget increases.

Romney agreed to some of them and vetoed others. The media helped him out again by making fanfare of his vetoes and portraying him as tough on spending - after he had already given away the store!

The Romney-Kennedy Alliance

But his grand finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney’s version of socialized medicine.

By his own admission, he didn’t plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election.

During Romney’s governor campaign, he convinced voters that his Democrat rival would be worse – because she would saddle us with socialist tax-and-spend policies, he said.

But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.

Voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare. Mitt Romney foisted the granddaddy of Big Government expansions upon them without warning. He championed it from the beginning. Again, without any prodding from his Democrat rivals.

When Romney ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, his campaign popularized the derogatory term “Kennedy country” to describe the devastating effects of Ted Kennedy’s “liberal social programs” on poor neighborhoods in Massachusetts.

Yet Mitt Romney stood proudly with Ted Kennedy while he signed RomneyCare into law.

Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney’s bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance.

Welcome to Massachusetts: Romney-Kennedy country.

Romney’s socialized medicine law mandates everyone who doesn’t have insurance to buy it – or suffer income tax penalties. Both individuals and small businesses face steep fines if they refuse to give up their freedom to make their own health care choices. There’s yet another “off budget” Mitt Romney tax increase.

Romney’s mandate will cost individual taxpayers many thousands of dollars every year in health insurance premiums for unwanted policies - or force them to pay sizable tax penalties.

The total cost of RomneyCare in mandates and new spending? At least several billion dollars every year – to start. It will rise from there, as socialized medicine programs are wont to do.

Romney’s law went into full effect in 2009. It’s harmful effects were not felt  until after the 2008 presidential election was over. Romney’s time-release tax increase.

Romney’s Words Versus Romney’s Deeds

Smart moms tell their kids, “Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

That advice saved me a lot of heartache. And it will do the same for Republicans who are leaning towards voting for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary.

Candidate Romney campaigns for president with the words we’re aching to hear. Words we want to believe. Candidate Romney tells us that he is a:

• “fiscal conservative”
• “friend of small business”
• “tax cutter”
• “waste fighter”
• “opponent of runaway spending”
• “tough leader who vetoes new taxes and needless government spending”

Let’s follow Mom’s advice: ignore candidate Romney’s words. Look at elected Governor Romney’s deeds.

What does he do when he’s elected?

Mitt Romney hits up taxpayers with a variety of new taxes – while pretending he doesn’t.

Mitt Romney jacks up government spending as much as any Big Government Democrat would.

Mitt Romney champions massive Big Government Programs – that made Ted Kennedy proud.

### Originally published May, 2007

Carla Howell sponsored the 2002 Massachusetts ballot initiative to End the State Income Tax – which Mitt Romney actively opposed. Her initiative nearly won with 885,000 votes: 45% of the vote. She ran the End the State Income Tax in 2008 and garnered 915,000 votes. In 2010, she ran a Massachusetts ballot initiative to roll back the sales tax from 6.25% to 3% – and garnered 967,000 votes. All opposed by Mitt Romney.

Carla Howell is Co-Founder and past President of the  Center For Small Government. She is currently on a leave of absence from the Center.

No related posts.

“What kind of heartless, sadistic animal are YOU?” demand Opponents of cutting government spending.

“Can’t you see the dire, drastic, draconian consequences of reducing government spending? Just look at a few examples.”

Proposed federal government spending cuts, they claim:

“Would lead to 70,000 kids dying.” (U.S. Agency for International Development)

“Would oust 218, 000 children from early childhood education and nutrition – and force 55,000 layoffs of employees.” (Head Start)

“Would cut $747.2 million in funding for low income Women with infants and children.”  (WIC)

“Means nearly 11 million patients losing health care services and 90,000 fewer jobs in communities with health care centers.” (Center for American Progress)

State and local government spending cuts, they claim, will result in:

• Tens of thousands of Police Officers, Fire Fighters, and Emergency Responders laid off

• Tens of thousands of Nurses and other Health Care Workers fired

• Hospital Services drastically slashed

• Tens of thousands of Public School Teachers laid off

“Budget Cutters: however much government spending you cut, wherever you cut it, you will cause pain and suffering, injury and death,” they claim.

Really?!

Who Put Hannibal Lecter in Charge of Government Spending Cuts?

You remember Hannibal Lecter, don’t you? Perhaps you cringed while watching Anthony Hopkins portray him in “Silence of the Lambs.”  Or perhaps you read Thomas Harris’ novels featuring him.

Hannibal Lecter, M.D – aka, Hannibal the Cannibal – is a fictional sadistic, gruesome serial killer. He relishes the painful, horrible torturing and killing of his victims.

In 2003, the American Film Institute chose Hannibal Lecter as the Number 1 Movie Villain.

So why are opponents of government spending cuts letting Hannibal Lecter decide what to cut?

Why would opponents of government spending reductions appoint someone who takes delight in finding the most cruel ways to inflict pain?

But those questions are not to the point. These are the right questions:

• Why are opponents trying to convince Americans that any and every government spending reduction would inflict pain and injury?

• Why are opponents of government spending cuts trying to scare us, guilt us, shame us, malign us, and intimidate us into shutting up?

How do they get away with this farce?

They have the support of every Special Interest that consumes tax dollars. They have the relentless backing of Big Government Partisans who run Mainstream News. Reporters and editors who report and repeat the propaganda.

How the Hannibal Lecter Ploy Works

1. Make a Victim List. People loved by those you want to influence. Their Moms and Dads. Families. Brothers and sisters. Babies. And then include innocent and helpless human beings. Then toss in workers and professions that people want and need.
2. Make a Harm List. Imagine bad things that can happen to people. Especially good people. Or innocent people. Problems. Poverty. Pain. Suffering. Injury. Disease. Death. Imagine the scariest, worst things that can happen.
3. Make a Spending Cut List. Start with spending cuts that are already on the table. Now imagine even more drastic, draconian, savage spending cuts. Write them down too. Fear is the key.
4. Make a List of Possible Consequences. Direct and indirect outcomes that these spending cuts could cause. Be sure to tie the spending cut list to the harm list, then to the victim list.
5. Act as though these consequences are as certain as the sun rising tomorrow.

That’s the Hannibal Lecter Ploy Against Reducing Government Spending.

How do the unwary react?

‘Wow, if cutting the budget means hurting innocent and helpless children, we should leave the budget alone.’

‘My gosh, I never knew that federal spending cuts would mean firing cops and firefighters in my town. Maybe we should keep spending where it is.’

‘Oh, no, I have 3 kids in public schools, and I didn’t realize that this budget cut means fewer teachers and overcrowded classrooms. Don’t cut the budget.’

Supporters of high government spending use the Hannibal Lector Ploy to scare, shame, embarrass, or intimidate those seeking to roll back government spending. They want to silence us – to cow us into NOT discussing or debating budget cuts.

They can’t win the debate over government spending – unless we forfeit, unless we shut up. They can only win if we default, if we give up.

That’s what the Hannibal Lecter Ploy is designed to accomplish.

How Can You Expose and Explode the Hannibal Lecter Ploy?

Name it, Explain it, and Defame it.

Remind people who Hannibal Lecter is. And what he does.

Point out that many supporters of high government spending use the Hannibal Lecter Ploy to silence and condemn those who want spending cuts. Explain how the ploy works.

Give them some real Hannibal Lecter Ploy examples from the news.

The Truth will set us free.

But only if you and I speak out. Only if you expose this deceitful tactic.

Share the Hannibal Lecter insight with family and friends and co-workers.

Name it, Explain it, and Defame it.

After you’ve done that, why not start a real discussion about government waste and overspending? Don’t be surprised if your friends have some really good ideas about where politicians should start cutting.

Here are some ideas for humane, fair and effective federal spending cuts.

Here are more ideas for Massachusetts state spending cuts (many of which apply to all states) Click on each item in this list for more detail.

No related posts.

State pension fund lost 2.8% in May

Seems like legitimate news – right? After all, that’s over $1 billion lost from a $50 billion retirement fund.

Or is it a diversion?

Here’s an example of a news article that the mainstream media should be running instead. The headline would be:

Social Security fund lost 100% in 2011 – again

and the article would read:

“After emptying 100% of the Social Security Trust Fund in both 2010 and 2009, the federal government spent nearly all of the fund’s yearly income again in 2011.

“$643 billion gone.

“Politicians withdrew all of the money paid into the Social Security Trust. They blew it on corporate bailouts, state government bailouts, foreign wars, aid to foreign governments, government employee retirement packages and other government hand-outs.

Now that’s news! But you never see this reported in the mainstream media.

Social Security is broke. Old Mother Hubbard empty. Congress has been raiding it for decades, depleting all of the retirement savings for hundreds of millions of private sector workers who paid into the fund and who depend on Social Security for their retirement.

Mainstream news coverage frequently laments that government employee retirement funds are only 70% funded. Or only 80% funded. They warn that we will soon have to cough up more tax dollars to pay for the remaining 20% or 30%.

But why should the focus be on a 20-30% shortfall in funding for government retirement plans — when millions of Americans have no backing at all for their retirement?

0% financial backing for Social Security versus an average of over 80% funding for government retirement funds.

Politicians have squirreled away close to 5 TRILLION dollars* for state, local and federal government retirees. An average of $250,000 for every government worker and retiree – a quarter of a million dollars - while saving nothing for private sector workers:

With no funds in the Social Security Trust Fund, hundreds of millions of private sector workers could face poverty in their senior years. They must rely solely on future taxes extracted from future workers – at the will of Congress – to see a return on the FICA taxes they’ve been forced to pay all their working lives.

Lavish funding of government retirement packages is a major cause of today’s astronomical government debt.

In 2010, concerned voters elected dozens of Congressman to do something about high government spending.

So far, they haven’t delivered. Rather, they continue to maintain and expand budget-busting government pensions for themselves and their political allies – while they blow through the retirement fund of ordinary taxpayers.

While some state lawmakers have begun to rein in the high cost of government employee benefits, they have only scratched the surface. Dramatic reductions in government retiree payouts and retirement fund subsidies are needed now to bring them in line with Social Security.

This will start to balance government employee compensation with what workers get in the private sector and stave off the debt crises that are unfolding in federal, state and local governments.

Meanwhile government employees will still enjoy a host of other advantages such as higher wages, better medical insurance plans with lower co-pays and lower deductibles, more vacation time, more personal and sick days, and more job security.

Question 1:

Will you vote out of office the politicians who raid your Social Security savings and cut your Social Security benefits — while they continue to pour billions of dollars into their own and their allies’ government employee retirement packages?

Question 2:

Will you vote for candidates who have the courage and integrity to take specific action that will bring government employee retirement pay and benefits in line with those of everyday taxpayers?

###

* A little math can give us a rough idea of the combined amount of all local, state, and federal government employee retirement funds – despite the fact that politicians refuse to report this data completely. For example, one of the ways they hide what they spend on government retirement plans is by funding them through “off-budget” accounts that are virtually never covered in mainstream news stories and almost never disclosed in government reports.

Consider that the $50 billion government retiree fund discussed in this article covers Massachusetts state government retirees and a portion of local government retirees. There are separate funds to cover the remaining local government retirees.

All retirement funds combined for Massachusetts government workers may well be worth $100 billion. And that’s just one state.

Massachusetts has an average population of about 6.5 million people – but it’s also wealthier than other states. If we assume that $100 billion in government retirement funds for Massachusetts is twice the national average, that means $50 billion is saved per state, times 50 states. That comes to $2.5 trillion saved just for state and local government retirees. According to the PEW Center on the States, the actual number was $2.35 trillion as of February, 2010.

Add to that total federal retiree funds – which are likely $2.5 trillion again – or more.

We should not be surprised to find that:

• $5 trillion – or more – is saved for about 20 million government workers.
• $0 is saved for hundreds of millions of private sector workers.

That comes to a quarter million dollars saved in trust for every government worker (current and future retirees) — versus ZERO, zip, nada, zilch saved for every private sector worker.

Are you sitting up in your chair yet? Are you ready to scream, “FOUL!“

No related posts.

These Republicans authorized a federal government deficit of $1.4 Trillion.

Their government spending raised the federal debt to over $15 Trillion.

The Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives have the unilateral power and authority and votes to block this massive overspending.

But they didn’t. They voted FOR sky-high federal government spending. $3.7 Trillion.

Republican House Leaders John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy refused to even try to substantially reduce this year’s federal government spending.

76% of the House Republicans just said ‘Yes’ and voted FOR $3.7 Trillion.

House Republicans just don’t get it.

Today’s Sky-High Government Spending is the #1 Biggest, Most Urgent, Most Dangerous Threat to America’s Survival.

High government spending drives up taxes and government borrowing.

High government spending is fueled and funded by high taxes, deficits, ever-increasing government debt, and inflation.

High government spending weakens and burdens the economy.

High government spending deprives small businesses of badly-needed income and earnings. It weakens fragile young businesses. It prevents, delays, and drives down small business job creation.

America’s survival requires a thriving and growing economy. One with robust, expanding small businesses. With private investments, private ventures, private enterprises.

Unless we dramatically reduce federal government spending now, and substantially reduce it again next year, and the next – the private sector in America will shrivel and shrink.

Without vibrant and vigorous private sector small businesses, America will follow the lonely path to the graveyard of once-great nations and civilizations.

With radically reduced government spending, with a prospering and proliferating private sector, America can rise faster and higher than we can imagine.

No related posts.

WTKK 96.9 FM Boston

WBZ 1030 AM Boston

WAAF 107.3 FM Boston

WXRV 92.5 FM Boston

WJLT 105.3 FM Evansville, IN

KSFO 560 AM San Francisco

WSCA 106.1 FM Portsmouth, NH

WORC 1310 AM Worcester, MA

WBIX 1060 AM Boston

WJGR 1320 AM Jacksonville, FL

WCCM 800 AM Methuen, MA

KNAK 540 AM Delta, UT

KOHI 1600 AM St. Helens, OR

WSRO 650 AM Framingham,MA

KXKS 1190 AM Albuquerque,NM

WARL 1320 AM Providence, RI

WASG 550 AM Pensacola, FL

WHBS 1400 AM Moultrie, GA

WIJD 1270 AM Mobile, AL

WITA 1490 AM Knoxville, TN

WKHB 620 AM Pittsburgh, PA

WLBE 790 AM Leesburg, FL

WLMR 1450 AM Chattanooga,TN

WSGF 1340 AM Augusta, GA

WTHV 810 AM Valdosta, GA

WWAB 1330 AM Lakeland, FL

WZNO 1230 AM Pensacola, FL

Radio America’s 400 affiliates

GCNLive.com

KcaaRadio.com

KTAE 1300 AM Austin , TX

WBCR 1470 AM Maryville/Alcoa, Tennessee

KCXL 11 AM Kansas City KS

KCTO 1160 AM Kansas City, MO

WASB 1590AM

WRSB 1310AM

WMJQ 105.5FM Brockport , NY

600 AM New Orleans, LA

KKVV 1060 AM Las Vegas, NV

KLID 1360 AM Poplar Bluff, MO

WYEA 1290 AM Sylacauga, AL

WAIS 770 AM Nelsonville, OH

90.7 FM Gatlinburg, TN

WITA 1420 AM Knoxville, TN

WNQM 1300 AM Nashville, TN

No related posts.

How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes?

Radio stations are welcome to play it on air royalty-free.

Send this link to a radio station near you and ask them to play it.

List of radio stations that have played How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes?

Lyric

No related posts.

At least 60 Republican members of the House of Representatives would NOT have been elected in 2010 without strong Tea Party support, volunteers, donations, and votes.

Why did the Tea Party movement help put them in office?

To END federal bailouts of businesses and state governments. Now.

To quickly and substantially reduce federal government spending – starting this year.

To immediately and dramatically reduce, then stop, deficit spending – by reducing federal government spending, NOT by raising taxes.

To quickly balance the federal budget. And keep it balanced. By spending reductions, NOT tax hikes.

And then, to start paying down the federal debt. Year after year. Until it is paid off.

The Tea Party Movement arose to bring about fiscal and financial sanity in government.

The Tea Party Movement has Two Action Priorities:

1. Swiftly and substantially reduce TOTAL federal government spending – year after year – to reduce and remove federal deficits, federal borrowing, and the federal debt. NO bailouts. NO tax increases.

2. Repeat action priority number one. Do NOT change the subject. Do NOT do something else. Do NOT tell us there are other things equally important. There aren’t.

And what did the 242 House Republican Representatives give the Tea Party Movement – and America?

A 1.8% spending reduction. A $3.6 Trillion federal budget. A $1.4 Trillion deficit.

The House Republicans are giving us insanity from Alice In Wonderland, NOT fiscal sanity and solvency for the federal government. A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, NOT a Boston Tea Party.

Compare the Boston Tea Party mandates with Mad Hatter Tea Party lunacy:

=========

Boston Tea Party: “Reduce federal government spending now.”

Mad Hatter Tea Party: “Tiny, trivial spending reductions this year – then reduce the reductions next year – so we can overspend and campaign against overspending in 2012. We can make words mean what we want them to.”

=========

Boston Tea Party: “Dramatically reduce the federal deficit – starting this year.”

Mad Hatter Tea Party: “The federal deficit is addictive. If we cut down too fast or quit cold turkey, the special interests, government spending profiteers, and foreign governments will suffer agonizing withdrawal. Think of us as deficit methadone. By keeping deficit cuts very slow and small – we House Republicans can get the deficit junkies off the stuff in 15 or 20 years. Maybe.”

=========

Boston Tea Party: “Balance the federal budget. Start paying down the national debt.”

Mad Hatter Tea Party:“Don’t balance the budget. Wax eloquently and campaign on our goal, or intention, or hope, or prayer to balance the budget in 10 years – which we absolutely, positively mean. Unless something comes up.”

=========

House Republicans: you campaigned as Boston Tea Partiers, NOT Mad Hatter Tea Partiers. We took you at your word. That’s why we elected you.

House Republicans: you have exactly 3 swings at federal spending:

1. Now, with a real budget to replace the “continuing resolution” for federal spending.

2. This September, with the Fiscal Year 2012 budget. (Oct 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2012)

3. Next September, with the FY 2013 budget. (Oct 1, 2012 – Sept. 30, 2013)

Three Strikes and You Are Out — of office. Compliments of your friendly Congressional District Tea Party.

If you refuse to keep the promise of the Tea Party Movement – to vote for substantially lower federal spending – we do not want you. We do not need you.

You will be judged by your actions. You can’t talk your way out of watered-down, wimpy, and anti-Tea Party votes in the House.

And there will be consequences.

True Tea Partiers will run a REAL Boston Tea Party candidate against you in your Republican Primary.

If you somehow win your primary, we will run and support a Third-Party or Independent Tea Party candidate in the general election. Whether our true Tea Party candidate wins or not, he will earn enough votes to make you lose.

Before you scream “spoiler,” remember that he will only run if your fiscal votes are tainted and rotten.

We want a Boston Tea Party Agenda federal government – and will settle for nothing less.

If you think you can vote as a Mad Hatter Tea Party Republican and still get Boston Tea Party votes in 2012 – you must be mad.

It’s not too late. Come to your senses.

America needs Tea Party-driven Congressmen. Be one.

No related posts.

These are some of the findings of a new report from the Government Accounting Office which uncovers massive redundancy in the federal government.

Congress needs to tell the legions of Special Interests knocking on their doors for favors everyday that duplicate federal agencies will not be tolerated. Struggling taxpayers, workers and businesses need that money.

“You may have just one lollipop. Not 15. Not 20. Not 80. Just one.”

We want one-stop shopping. No more than one government program or agency per objective.

But this is just the first step. We still need to examine the one agency that remains for redundancy and waste.

We also must determine whether government belongs in this area at all. 99% of all problems are worse served by government than by the marketplace, charities, churches, social groups, family and friends.

Congressmen and women, especially those who call themselves Tea Party Supporters:

1. Immediately defund every redundant agency and program. Leave no more than one in any area of government.
2. Reduce and remove redundancy and the money spent for it. Do not “consolidate” overstaffing and overspending under one bigger roof.
3. Cut TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Don’t blow the freed up money on something else.
4. To be sure the savings move out of government coffers, cut taxes or reduce deficit spending by the same amount. If you eliminate $200 billion in redundant spending, then cut total federal spending or taxes by $200 billion.

End the grab for handfuls of lollipops. This is the first step towards fiscal sanity.

###

Carla Howell talks about federal government redundancies on WRKO with host Barry Armstrong: http://audio.wrko.com/a/37329573/carla-howell-on-wasteful-government-spending.htm

Wall Street Journal March 1, 2011: Billions in Bloat Uncovered in Beltway

No related posts.

They’re easy targets. Jim Rooney, who oversees the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, makes $276,000. Outgoing Massport manager, Thomas Kinton, makes $295,000 – and will pocket a cool $495,000 payout for unused sick time. Coming right out of the hide of taxpayers.

This column asks rhetorically, “Who thinks the head of the airport should make twice as much as the governor? ”

But that’s the WRONG question.

Similarly, it is wrong to compare salaries of heads of state bureaucracies with the salaries of heads of other states’ bureaucracies. Neither is competitive. Or as Michael Cloud likes to say, comparing governments is like looking for the soberest drunk in a bar.

It makes even less sense to compare an agency head’s salary with that of a governor, who spends millions to get elected. They pay dearly for the privilege of enacting laws and indulging of the many perks of being a powerful politician.

Rather, the questions should be:

1. What is the job of running an airport or a convention center worth? If you posted it on Craig’s List for $80,000 (don’t even include the usual lavish government employee benefits), would plenty of qualified people step forward happy to take the job? There’s a lot of very skilled managers looking for work right now.

What usually “qualifies” a person for a politically-appointed job is their allegiance to the political powers-that-be.

But managing airports, convention centers and parking lots should be based only on relevant management skills that would be needed to do these jobs in the PRIVATE sector.

2. Should the salary actually be $0? That is to say, should the job – or the agency – even exist?

What on earth is the state doing in the business of building convention centers anyway? Especially since its track record for building them at a reasonable cost and turning a profit is abysmal. (Pioneer Institute published a good analysis on this topic.)

Try this: Sell off all state-owned convention centers, get the state out of the business, and let the marketplace decide what the job is worth – or if the property should be sold off for another use.

There’s a long list of state-owned properties, especially in Boston, that should be sold – along with their unnecessary, overpriced and ineffective bureaucracies. Let the free market determine where money should go and where jobs should be created (at market prices, not inflated prices).

As with any spending cut, the saving should be realized by the taxpayer alone – not horded in state coffers. Proceeds from the sale of assets should be used to pay off existing government debt, thus reducing debt payments. Total government spending should be reduced by both (a) the amount saved in debt payments and (2) the agency’s operating costs – with commensurate cuts in broad-based taxes.

If we don’t cut total government spending and total tax revenues, politicians will merely gobble up the savings and spend them on other Big Government boondoggles – and we will make no headway whatsoever.

No related posts.