The President’s budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

US receipt and expenditure estimates for fiscal year 2010.Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

• What is in the Health Care Bill? Thanks to nopc.info for the summary: Summary Timeline for Major Items in Senate Health Care Bill Provisions that take effect immediately upon enactment: Insurance Regulations...
• The Solution to Overspending on Credit? More Credit, of Course! When I was very young and was learning about money, I would scratch my head when I passed by roadside signs: "Bad Credit, No Credit...

Last week the “financial Reform” bill passed Congress … but there was no mention of the 2 complicit GSE’s, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They have cost $160B so far and will likely cost $1 TRILLION to clean up.

And the people that wrote this new bill?  The same people who DENIED over and over again that the GSE’s were just fine:

Rep Richard Baker (R-LA) asked in 2003 for more regulation of these corrupt giants.  Watch Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA) say “We do not have a criss at Freddie Mac, and particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines” [later convicted of fraud, a current Obama advisor] .

Watch Rep Gregory Meeks (D-NY) say “there is nothing wrong”, “we don’t need it [regulation]“. Rep Lacy Clay (D-MO) called the hearings a “political lynching of Franklin Raines” (who happens to be an African American).  Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) says “I don’t see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems.”

Watch this if you can stomach the lies!

These same blockers received campaign donations (Obama was #1) from these GSE’s.  How can we believe anything will change?  I don’t

• I'm Getting Ill Watching the Wave of Socialism Washing Over America I just spent� the� last few weeks in France, watching� the� local Progressive politicians argue over who should pay for what failure. I was� stunned�...
• Is This Legal? Can a Government Department Encourage Partisan Politics? The Lou Dobbs radio show pointed out yesterday that the Health and Human Services web site had a button on it that asked for "Support...

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Listen to the wisdom of Reagan.

• Well -- It Seems the AARP is Listening to its Membership! The AARP has been widely viewed as bring the in the bag for Obama's health care "reform" plans. Maybe not so! Today, Newsmax reports: At...
• Economic Storm Clouds Gather as USA Goes Socialist For the last year, all political attention has been focussed on the health care debate. In the end, the bills that were ramrodded through Congress...

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you

Rudyard Kipling

So-called “intelligent people” are continuing to call shots and give advice to the US President and Congress that is leading us straight over the financial cliff.

Obama claims that the root causes of our financial crisis are:  a) Bush, b) Wall Street, c) Banks, and d) Republicans.

Paul Krugman, like Obama, a Nobel-prize winner (which should say something about his credibility) is a perma-Keynesian who writes for the NY Times.  I noted recently that he has been one of the prime proponents of MASSIVE  borrowing and spending by the Federal government.

Now on Sunday the 27th, he warned we are entering a Depression.  He whines about the lack of spending from government:

“you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.”

Gee Paul, what part of reckless spending don’t you understand?  He says that not spending is a deliberate mean-spirited act:

“the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.”

It now seems that Krugman, Obama and his merry men are becoming a smaller and smaller voice, as governments all over the world wobble with crushing debts and deficits. Obama encouraged the G20 in Toronto to spend; they told him to pound sand.

Rebuffed, Obama still cannot bring himself to reduce government spending — rather we will see some wild-ass tax proposals.  As far as he is concerned, though federal expenditures are up 21% in the last 2 years, spending isn’t the problem. He wants to hike taxes, but knows he hasn’t got a chance before the November elections, so he sent a veiled warning  from Toronto:

“I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I’m calling their bluff, And we’ll see how much of the political arguments they’re making right now are real, and how much of it was just politics.”

Why wait? Well, he has to wait for his blue-ribbon debt commission to come back (after the election), so he can propose taxes, taxes, taxes .. to save us.  But that committee looks like there are some no-nonsense members, like Alan Simpson, who aren’t going to pussy foot around — so that may blow up on Obama.

Of course, the root causes of the financial crises are not, according to the government:

• Reckless government spending
• Unfunded programs: social security, medicare, prescription drugs
• Unfunded government union pensions
• A non-transparent and reckless Fed, who is trying experiments never tried before
• Freddie and Fannie, encouraged by Congress, backing ridiculous loans to anyone with a dog
• And did I mention? reckless government spending

The reality is that we cannot spending our way out of an over-spending problem, regardless of what Nobel-prize winning economists say.

Allan Meltzer writes in today’s WSJ: “Why Obamanomics Has Failed:

“Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it’s harmful now.”

The solution? Reganomics anyone?

“The contrast with President Reagan’s antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.”

Are we too late to following recovery plans like Prices’s “Stop Reckless Spending” plan, or Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future“?

I’m afraid we will suffer a lot of pain before then.  Mish Sherlock wrote this week that “An Economic Depression is Here“. Congress and The Fed are to blame.

Hold tight … this won’t be fun.

• The Nation is Against Obama, But He Continues to Drive His Socialist Agenda 56% disapprove of Obama. Today's Rasmussen poll shows Obama has hit another low in voter support. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential...
• Why Obama MUST Pass Govt Takeover of Health A New Zealand point of view ... in its entirety: I have written this post to explain why President Obama is so desperate to pass...

Is it a requirement of people who run for public office that they must abandon all sense of fiscal sanity? It would seem so.

A review of the headlines over the past 2 weeks shows us that Forrest Gump was right:

Stupid is as stupid does.

Where do we start?

Governments Borrowing to Pay Debts

What would happen to your family finances if you took out a Home Equity Loan to pay the mortgage?  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out .. you will have more debt that you have to pay off down the road.  But it seems that governments all over the place have developed this very habit.  The Solution to Overspending on Credit? More Credit, of Course.

It started on June 11 when Gov Paterson of New York borrowed $6 Billion from the New York State pension fund to pay … the New York State pension fund!  Talk about dumb!  The pension fund plans to earn 8% on its investments, but is willing to lend it to the Government for a mere 4.5% – 5.5%!  Sort of stupid .. sort of really corrupt.  When the cows come home to roost on this one, God Bless New York!

Even more frightening to us all is the bottomless liability posed by Freddie and Fannie. Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case. Now a Trillion is a lot of money. Rather than collapse these disasters and turn mortgage underwriting and insurance back to the private sector, these living dead will suck the blood out of us for years to come …

Government Drunk on Spending

I always preface drunken government spending comments with this quote from Ronald Reagan:

We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money.

Want to really get concerned?  Take a look at the US Debt Clock. The Total Debt Per Citizen sits at $175,281, or $669,993 per family.  Given income per family is only $62,445, it would take 10 years of working just for the government for us to pay of this debt.

Add liabilities of Social Security, Prescription Drugs, Medicare and other unfunded liabilities – the total liabilities per citizen rises to $352,617.  Assets are $235,844.  So we are technically bankrupt. We are short $116,773 per man, woman and child in the country!!

Government Ignoring Need to Stop Spending

Encouraged by Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman who wrote even this week: The Bad Logic Of Fiscal Austerity.  He argues that borrowing a $1 Trillion and paying the interest is affordable and

not much cost to pay for generating jobs when they’re badly needed and avoiding disastrous cuts in government services.

Ah! The last thing we can do is stop government spending!  If in fact government spending was actually positive, then is there a limit?  Why not spend as much as we can borrow? (Oops! I think they are already doing that!!)  Now don’t think you have permission to argue with this Nobel Laureate or the anointed economic elite.  You just don’t “get it”.

During the last 5 years, governments have increased their spending and hiring by leaps and bounds, while their revenues have shrink.  According to the Krugman crowd, this makes sense.

Who is Footing the Bill?

But you will pay the bills.  I extracted some figures from the Debt Clock to create the following analysis:

Private industry workers (who pay ALL the bills) comprise 51% of all people working, unemployed, retired or working for governments.  Government employees, who are 14% of this total, consume over 30% of the GDP.  So 1/2 of us have to pay for the other half … BUT WAIT!

Only 1/2 of us who file tax returns pay federal taxes!  If we assume this is evenly distributed among private industry workers, we have 1/4 of the population paying for the largess of government!

I don’t think this ends well.  It can’t. It doesn’t make sense. And when you need a Princeton PhD to explain why it does, I know it doesn’t.

• Fiscal Insanity from the Economic Intelligentsia If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you Rudyard Kipling So-called "intelligent people" are continuing...
• Yes, Government Controlled Health Care is Worse In the hours Sunday leading up to the vote that will go down in infamy, I was engaged in a heated debate with a left...

Today we take a detailed look at a recent FTC proposal that effectively regulates the news. You can get it here.

Hold onto your copy of the US constitution, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The FTC, packed with Obama socialists, has just published a Discussion Draft on “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism“.  These proposals seek to regulate the Internet — not just access speeds and bandwidth, but the information itself!

Proposal 1: Control the Utterance of Facts

The FTC deplores the fact that copyright does not protect “facts” in news stories, that other organizations can “free-ride” by repeating the facts gathered by newspapers.

Advocates argue “the copyright act allows parasitic aggregators to ‘free ride’ on others’ substantial journalistic investments,” by protecting only expression and not the underlying facts, which are often gathered at great expense. They define parasitic aggregators as those that, without permission, post enough material to render the original news stories redundant. This free-riding undercuts revenue for those who make investments in journalism and undermines their incentive to do so, according to advocates. They suggest that federal hot news legislation could help address revenue problems facing newspapers by preventing this free-riding.

So the first point is : why does the FTC think they have to intervene to help one type of competitor in the media?

They go on to discuss what the moratorium period might be under federalized “hot news” rules — rules that would prohibit, it would seem, you from tweeting information published by, say, the White House news team.  While they discuss a “2 hour” ban — what would stop politicians and liberal courts from a 2-month ban?? … making the only facts available from White House trusted sources.

Proposal 2: Limit Search Engine Fair Use of News

To be fair, this argument is balanced, but consider this — that obscure blog that breaks embarrassing news might not be indexed by the search engine, ensuring that popular sites (Time, Newsweek, New York Time and other left-leaning sites) are the only ones with the “facts”.

Proposal 3: License News

Getting a chill yet. They go on to say:

governments have considered how to provide adequate incentives and funding for the news and are exploring, for example, the creation of government-fostered pilot programs to investigate new business models for IP  [Intellectual Property] and discourage free-riding.

The notion: If you want to tweet a story, you pay a “micro-payment” back to the originator: the NYT, the White House news machine, etc.

They acknowledge:

A compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct.

So yes, the FTC proposes we tax the dissemination of  FACTS, clearly abridging the freedom of speech and the free press.

Proposal 4: Drop Anti-Trust Rule for Newspapers So They Can Collude to Force Consumers to Pay for News

Another chilling concept.  So let me count it up so far (and I am only on page 13 of the 47 page report) … you can’t repeat facts, you can’t search news, and you have to pay to find news facts … all under government licence.  Now, big news can syndicate their news and prevent anyone from uttering the facts they find!!!

Proposal 5: Provide Government Subsidies to Some News Organizations

Yikes! The FTC comments:

Many people, including journalists, recoil at the thought of government assistance to sustain journalism.

(Me too!)  Yet it justifies subsidies with a comment that it has been done and:

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has received direct support for over 40 years.

The FTC report waxes on for pages on the glories and success of Public Broadcasting.

“the fundamental purpose of public service media is to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten and enrich the public… CPB invests in programs and services that are educational, innovative, locally relevant and reflect America’s common values and cultural diversity.”

Can you hear the choirs singing the praises to the glories of PBS, comrade?  The FTC moans on …

The U.S. government’s support for public broadcasting is very small compared to other democratic countries. For example, “if the United States spent at the same per capita level as Canada, our federal commitment would be $7.5 billion.” Per capita spending by Finland and Denmark is approximately 75 times greater.

So the proposal is to provide subsidies (i.e.  Place more news organizations under government funding = control).

Subsidies

• Fund AmeriCorps Journalism Division. Can anyone say “Socialism youth camp and ministry of information”?
• Direct more funds to Public Broadcasting.
• Directly fund local news.  Now who would hand out the money? Would a non-government supporting blog get funded?
• Provide tax credits for hiring reporters.
• Provide citizens with a voucher to buy non-profit news!  You have to read the entire text to grasp the Orwellian nature of this proposal.

Establish Citizenship News Vouchers. Citizenship news vouchers would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization of their choice. People could indicate on their tax return whether and to which nonprofit organization they want a specific amount (perhaps up to $200) to be donated, but they would not be required to designate a donation. They could split their “federal funds” donation among several different qualifying nonprofit media . Proponents of this approach suggest it would create a funding mechanism to encourage viable independent Internet journalism while avoiding government control or the creation of a bureaucracy that could influence the recipients of the money based on politics. This proposal also could give foundations a role to play. Foundations could provide start-up funding for 3 to 5 years to help new ventures, “and then see if there is popular support for the venture in the form of Citizenship News Vouchers.” If desired, this proposal could be structured to apply to commercial, as well as non-profit, news entities.

• Provide grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism.  Has anyone seen a journalism school in America that is not far left-of-center?
• Provide SBA funds to nonprofit journalism organizations.  Can you spell “ACORN”?
• Point the Voice Of America at America.
• Increase postal subsidies for newspapers.

New Taxes

The FTC paper then rambles into a long discussion of how to tax to pay for “better news”.

1. 7% tax on radio and TV revenues! (Watch your cable bill folks!)
2. 5% tax on TVs and radios!
3. Tax on spectrum auction prices.
4. 2% tax on all advertising!
5. Another federal 3% tax on cell phone bills!

A Better Society for All

The FTC then waxes on about the best organization structure for news so that it serves

social purposes, such as economic redevelopment or environmental protection.

Some news entities may wish to explore hybrid organizational structures that integrate the pursuit of social purposes with business activities. These organizational designs include, among others, “Flexible Purpose” and “Benefit” corporations and low-profit limited liability companies (L3Cs). These hybrid designs may make sense for news entities, because journalism can fit a “social purpose” paradigm – that is, good journalism improves social welfare by educating the public through truthful and insightful reporting.

The report suggests government make Freedom of Information Act data (and most government information) more readily available, indexable and available (to select new organizations) for a reduced-fee.

Summary

In a nutshell, the FTC proposal suggests we:

• Abridge the freedom of speech and the press by restricting the utterance of facts reported in the news.
• Limit the ability of search engines to search news.
• License news so you pay when you repeat a fact.
• Allow news organizations to collude.
• Subsidize some news organizations, and promote non-profit news organizations for good social purposes.
• Provide you with a voucher so you can buy non-profit news.
• Tax TV, radio, TVs, radios, spectrum, advertising and cell phones.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.  If any one of these proposals gets into any bill, it is a clear and blatant abridgment of the First Amendment.

Citizens: beware!

News Reaction:

Even the Huffington Post says to the FTC: Get off our lawn!

The LA Times ridicules it in a story: Obama’s FTC plan to reinvent America’s news media.

The Washington Examiner asks: Will journalists wake up in time to save journalism from Obama’s FTC?

• Healthcare? A Real Life Canadian Example -- Do We Want this in the USA? My father is in his late seventies, and has been a very active person, golfing many times a week. He lives in Florida in the...
• Why Obama MUST Pass Govt Takeover of Health A New Zealand point of view ... in its entirety: I have written this post to explain why President Obama is so desperate to pass...

An excellent and funny explanation of world governments bailout logic (what little there is of it!)

• Obama Disdains Govt By, Of and For the People Obama, like all "progressive" (formerly known as avowed socialists), believes in rule by an elite class. An IBD column yesterday has some stunning quotes, dug...
• Organized Smear Against Main-Stream America If you are against the position of the Obama, you must be a racist. If you want smaller government, you are spreading hate. If you...

The Federal government (through the quasi-private Federal Reserve Bank) is the only level of our government who can coin money. So profligate spenders at state, county and local levels are going bankrupt , especially under the weight of bloated salaries and pensions for pubic workers.

Mish reports a story of the pending bankruptcy in Miami.

The city of Miami is in such financial dire straits that commissioner Marc Sarnoff is using the “B” word, bankruptcy.

“We are not the only city, municipality to be going through this. It looks like Los Angeles sometime next week or the week after will be going bankrupt. It looks like there will be 30 more cities following suit.”

Increases in public worker salaries is one of the main reasons why the budget is so tight. The average salary for a Miami city employee is $76,000. The average salary for a Miami city resident is $29,000.

Employee pensions are choking the budget too. In 2000, pension payouts cost taxpayers $16 million. In 2009 that number spiked up to $70 million.

Not un-coincidentally, state governements all over are cutting pay, payrolls and crushing pension benefits:

• Education Minnesota Drops Opposition to Curbing Benefits
• The Atlantic reports: Public Pensions Headed for Disaster
• New York City’s pension contribution for 2011 is projected at $7 billion, more than 10% of the entire budget.
• Even the New York Times cries: Padded Pensions Add to New York Fiscal Woes

more than 100 retired police officers and firefighters are collecting pensions greater than their pay when they were working. One of the youngest, Hugo Tassone, retired at 44 with a base pay of about $74,000 a year. His pension is now $101,333 a year.

This widespread and obscene theft of public money is unsustainable and is crashing down all over … as it must.

EXCEPT …. to the rescue is the nanny of all nannies – the bottomless pit of money from the Federal government:  Sen Bob Casey (D-NJ) has proposed bill S.3157 to “save” public pensions .. those pensions that pay public workers 2-4 times the average private individual … with the money from .. you got it .. the poorer private individuals.

I think few in the private sector voted for this “fundamental change” in America — where private individuals are plundered for the benefit of overpaid public workers.  This has to end NOW, or it will crash in an ugly fashion.

• Do Americans Want Collectivism? David Ignatius writes in tomorrow's Washington Post about the future of America. The rehab economy will also be more collectivist, with a greater public role...
• The Solution to Overspending on Credit? More Credit, of Course! When I was very young and was learning about money, I would scratch my head when I passed by roadside signs: "Bad Credit, No Credit...

Quote of the Day: "Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets, all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property. Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head." – The Institute For Justice, "Policing For Profits"

Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of seizing and keeping property that police claim was used in a crime.

* The government does not have to prove their claim in court under the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"
* Instead of "innocent until proven guilty" the property owner must prove innocence at his or her own expense
* Incredibly, the funds necessary to pay for that defense are often also confiscated

Police departments are growing more dependent on forfeitures to pay for their budgets. This means no one is safe . . .

* Instead of "protecting and serving" the people, police are pressured to investigate "crimes" which provide the best opportunity to seize property and cash,
* You can lose your car, your cash, or other property through a simple misunderstanding, or because you "look" suspicious
* And even where there are state laws protecting the innocent against abuses, the federal government rewards local police departments for evading state law!

Civil asset forfeiture is a moral and constitutional outrage. Yet the courts permit it. Only public pressure will bring this corrupt and barbaric practice to an end, so we’re asking you to tell Congress to End Asset Forfeiture.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

The Institute for Justice report "Policing For Profit," offers a sobering look at asset forfeiture in the United States today. Local law enforcement have used asset forfeiture proceeds to . . .  http://tinyurl.com/22p2oop

* purchase football tickets for the district attorney’s office

* purchase TV ads for the district attorney’s re-election campaign;

* fund a "training seminar" in Hawaii for the staff of the district attorney’s office

In one instance, $250,000 was donated to the sheriff’s alma mater for a scholarship!

Amazingly, most of this money was taken from people who were never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted. It was stolen money.

"Policing For Profits" also reveals that . . .

* A survey of 770 law enforcement executives found that nearly 40% viewed civil forfeiture as a necessary budget supplement
* A sample of 52 police departments in Texas found that forfeiture proceeds accounted for 14% of their budgets
* There is very little accountability or oversight on how the money is spent

There are a few states with reasonable safeguards designed to protect the innocent against asset forfeiture abuse, but the federal government circumvents these state laws through a program called "equitable sharing." Local police can seize property and hand it over to the federal government in order to bypass state controls.

* The local police agency can get as much as 80% of the proceeds back from the Federal government
* The true owner must fight in federal court for the return of his or her property
* Instead of the government proving guilt, the owner must prove innocence
* The costs of challenging forfeiture is often so great that many forfeitures go unchallenged

In addition, the federal government itself has cleared a $1 billion profit from civil forfeiture. And yet, 80% of the property owners are never even charged with a crime. They are victims of government theft!

I have no problem with laws that require individuals convicted of heinous crimes to forfeit criminal profits and the property they used in the crime. But taking property without even pressing criminal charges is naked theft AND YOU KNOW IT.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments say that no person can lose his of her property without due process of law. Honor your oath of office. Repeal the federal forfeiture laws and end equitable sharing.

END LETTER

You can send your letter through DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

If you are as outraged at civil asset forfeiture as we are, we encourage you to forward this message to your friends and share this on Facebook.

Thanks for taking action!

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

SUPPORT the "Educate the Powerful System".

Feel Free to Forward or Reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included. But we recommend you delete everything in this footer, i.e., below the words "Downsizer-Dispatch".

Your subscription comes to this email address: libertyyes@cooperusa.net.

If you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We’re eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.

If you do not want to receive any more newsletters (to unsubscribe), click this link.

To update your newsletter preferences visit this link.

Sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200. Normally published 3-6 times per week. The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going to http://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter

• You Commit 3 Federal Felonies a Day Finally the New York Times has noticed that government is too big, too intrusive and too vague. � The net result is that it makes...
• Have Your Read the Proposed Health Care Bill? Here are excerpts, thanks to Jeff Jacobs and Alan Peters: Sec. 113, Pg. 21-22 of the Health Care (HC) Bill MANDATES a government audit of...

Here you go, from the Fraser Institute in Canada.

• The Canadian Consumer Tax Index tracks the total tax bill of the average Canadian family from 1961 to 2009. The total tax bill of the average Canadian family, including all types of taxes, has increased by 1,624 percent since 1961.
• Taxes have grown much more rapidly than any other single expenditure for the average Canadian family. In contrast to the jump in taxes, spending on shelter increased by 1,198 percent, food by 559 percent, and clothing by 526 percent from 1961 to 2009.
• In 1961, the average family had an income of $5,000 and paid a total tax bill of $1,675 (33.5 percent). In 2009, the average Canadian family earned an income of $69,175 and paid total taxes equaling $28,878 (41.7 percent).
• The average Canadian family now spends more of its income on taxes than it does on the basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing. In 1961, the average family used 56.5 percent of its income on basic necessities, while only 33.5 percent of the family’s income went to taxes. In 2009, the proportion of income consumed by taxes had increased (to 41.7 percent), while the fraction of income spent on food, shelter, and clothing had dropped dramatically (to 37.1 percent).

Why Canada?  Everyone that I meet in the USA says: “Why can’t we have the economy (motored by oil), the health care (run by governments) and the economic stability (Run by excessive taxation) like they have in your home country of Canada?”

Canada is another one of the “canaries in the coal mine” about the creeping socialism all over the world.  Greece, Spain, Italy … somewhere down the line is Canada and the USA.

The report continues on …

Including deferred taxes (deficits) means the tax bill of the average Canadian family has increased by 1,793 percent since 1961.

Yikes!  I just don’t get it!  Governments all over have been spending FAR MORE than they can afford, racking up, especially, future pension liabilities for everyone …. then when the economy collapses, we do a bail-out.

Imagine what is going through the mind now of an average frugal German .. who is asked to bail out Greece.  Greeks are living far beyond the means … but will they cuts liabilities? not when Germans will send them cash.

I chatted with a friend last evening who told me that he had a huge sum in municipal bonds. I cautioned him, noting that Central Falls RI went bankrupt this week, and many states SHOULD follow.  His response: “Oh, the Federal government will just bail them out of the bonds get in trouble.”  He said this after a 20 minute rant on the size and invasiveness of government.

We all may be capitalists, but but we like the nanny state.  Until we throw out the bums who would spend and tax us to oblivion, and change this attitude … we are screwed.  But, on the horizon, I expect we will see more Chris Christie’s — honest, straight-talking politicians who aren’t in government to line their own pockets.

• Hospital Care - DMV Style A story today in Investors Business Daily today headlines 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul. � It shows that...
• The Nation is Against Obama, But He Continues to Drive His Socialist Agenda 56% disapprove of Obama. Today's Rasmussen poll shows Obama has hit another low in voter support. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential...