Humm here's some unnecessary pork for you all.

Feb 19 2009, 5:02 pm by Conor Clarke
The Cost of the Reagan Centennial

Eager for stimulus news, I have tried to obsessively follow the release of Congressional Budget Office cost estimates. And I see that the CBO released a bunch of new estimates last night, though they had nothing to do with the stimulus package. There was, for instance, a cost estimate of House concurrent resolution 37 (pdf) -- a resolution "authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby." The CBO estimates that this would "result in no significant cost to the federal government." Who knew?

One cost estimate that I thought was interesting, however, was for H.R. 131 (pdf) -- which would would "establish a commission to plan, develop, and coordinate the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of former President Ronald Reagan on February 6, 2011." Setting up this commission will apparently cost the federal government $1 million. How would Ronald Reagan feel about that?


I also see that H.R. 131 was sponsored by Rep. Elton Gallegly, who voted against what he rather creatively called the "Non-Stimulus Act," arguing that it went light on tax cuts "in order to increase government spending."

this spending bill does highlight the difference between the Republican philosophy and the Democrat philosophy

the Democrat philosophy is to spend tax money (and raise taxes) to inject money into the economy

the Republican philosophy is to cut taxes and limit government to leave money in the economy

and every twenty years or so they take turns being in charge and betraying their respective philosophy by spending the tax money on pork and waste

You know the tax cuts in the package are among the largest in U.S. history?

This bill is a Keynesian approach to the economy as apposed to the supply-side approach that has apparently failed.

The facts are...no one really knows what will work. We only know what has failed to work so far.

yah, I dont really expect much from the stimulus package

I think we just have to bite the bullet and allow the recession to work its way through the economy

some big name businesses will fail and some will prosper

survival of the fittest

How about this...

There are 87 hostile nations the US gives food and aid to. North Korea is one of them.

Agencies that are a definite waste of money and time...
DOEnergy
DOEducation
EPA

Not to mention a host of Committees that exist for no reason.

Also there is a host of social programs that are completely outdated.

On top of that are all of the government subsides to Energy and Agriculture that should not exist.

Deregulation is really screwing everything up as well as maintaining old and outdated policies and supporting useless programs.

Instead of halting government spending and addressing where all of the money is going Obama opted for spending more money that is not there.

In California right now ALL taxes are going up by over 100% and it started with vehicle registration. That is an instant DOUBLING of that one tax alone and others are following!

Amnesty for illegal aliens and the free give a ways to 12 MILLION illegal immigrants had sank Cali right into a 43 Billion dollar deficit and instead of trying to address the problem the right way the DEMS here have been upping taxes and spending more! Everyone has been unfairly blaming Arnold S for all the crap the California representatives have been pulling on us all along. Corruption is running far too deep and we either find a way to clean it up or get ready for a total economic collapse in two years!

The one thing Regan did was to forstall the inevitable economic crunch social spending was beginning to impose on us back then! Regan was not that bad. Obama is digging a deeper hole than Regan ever dug!

I have news for you...the hole was already dug.

So, whatcha think about the Reagan birthday spending?

question....where did the term pork come from????

I know I have been in a cave lately

From online Etymological Dictionary

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php

pork (n.) Look up pork at Dictionary.com
1215, "flesh of a pig as food," from L. porcus "pig, tame swine," from PIE *porko- "young swine" (cf. Umbrian purka; O.C.S. prase "young pig;" Lith. parsas "pig;" O.E. fearh, M.Du. varken, both from P.Gmc. *farhaz). Porker young hog fattened for food" is recorded from 1657; meaning "fat person" is from 1892. Pork chop is attested from 1858. Pork barrel "state's financial resources" is 1909, on notion of food supply kept in a barrel (lit. sense from 1801); the shortened form pork in this sense is attested from 1862. Pork-pie hat originally described a woman's style popular c.1855-65, so called for its shape.

so basically it means fluff???

Make work projects might not be regarded as fluff to the people who get the work.

Pork spending it seems is only bad if someone else is sitting down to the table. If the meats on your table it's my bet even those who profess to hate pork will pull up a chair.

Some senators have made great reputations and have won reelection time after time for bringing pork to their districts. Stevens the recently convicted Alaska senator comes to mind.


pork barrel

Dictionary: pork barrel

http://www.answers.com/topic/pork-barrel

n. Slang.

A government project or appropriation that yields jobs or other benefits to a specific locale and patronage opportunities to its political representative.

Question for you. Where will they get the money if not from taxes?

largest but not fair. at least with bush we got cuts across the board. these are more for the poor that will likely just piss it away. Last I checked, tax cuts for the rich pulled us out of the mess of the late 70s and it sure as hell worked this decade as well. I can't recall the last time helping the poor and shafting the rich gave any durable benefit.

unless, of course, you have a good example where our current tax plan has failed?


also, being that the reagan thing is less than .0000025% of the SPENDING (not tax cut) part of the plan, I'm not happy it's in there but it's beyond mediocre at this point.

I'm much more pissed about the $300,000,000 to save a ****ing mouse in san francisco or the $8,000,000,000 to build a train from LA into the largest moneymaker in the Senate Majority Leader's state. $1,000,000 doesn't seem so large now.




Jobs are one thing. The major issue here are the expenses that go with those jobs. expanding current jobs is one thing but, for example, the SF thing I mentioned above has no current roots. There is literally going to have to be an entire agency created from scratch to create maybe 30 jobs. even at 300 jobs, the cost per job in that would still be a cool million apiece. Ironically (well, not really) the project is in the home district of the Speaker of the House that authored the bill.

Spending on jobs is one thing when you're expanding what exists. this is just inefficiency at its worst. Oh, and the funny part is that Obama is going to flag any governor that is "wasteful or inefficient" in their use of the stimulus funds. The whole plan is inefficient!

from constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

Article I

excerpt section 9

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

----------

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

--------------------------------------

16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html

(could not find a state by state ratification vote nor a number ratio vote)

--------------------------------

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

-------------------------------


things that make you go hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

-------------------------------

http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_761594100/16th_amendment_ratified.html

article supporting 16th ratification

The hole was dug in the 1950's because of the Baby boom. That one thing set economics on the course we are heading and now the "Growth" economy is falling apart.

When are the shi8head powers that be realize an economy based on Stability is what we needed all along. Growth fluctuates too much and also affects social spending. these days fewer people pay into social security and have to prop up all of the retirees that were part of the baby boom.

There is way too much profit mongering going on in congress these days.

Besides, it is easy to pick on a dead guy!