Thursday, May 13, 2010

Eric Cantor's You Cut

I have mixed feelings about Eric Cantor, but I do think that is a good idea.  It involves the public which is a good thing.  The more we can get average citizens involved the better, especially since this will allow people to see for themselves some of the simply stupid things our government spends our money on.  There is one on this list that I totally disagree with cutting. 

Presidential Election Fund

$260 million in savings

This federal program provides matching funds to political candidates during Presidential primaries, certain third-party candidates, and funds for political conventions. In the 2008 presidential election, the candidates raised over $1.3 billion from individuals and PACs, do they really need to supplement that with taxpayer money? This proposal has been estimated to save $260 million over five years. (Also proposed as part of the RSC Sunset Caucus.)

Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities

$600 million in savings

Currently, some federal employees spend up to 100% of their workweek, paid by taxpayers, doing work for their union. Federal employees unions collect millions in revenue each year and spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying, should they also be subsidized by the taxpayer for their official functions? In 2008 the Federal government spent $120 million paying employees for their time spent working on union activities (over five years this would total a minimum of $600 million.) (Also proposed as part of the RSC Sunset Caucus.)

HUD Program for Doctoral Dissertations

$1 million in savings

Recently, taxpayers have financed research on media strategies for housing policy and the use of eminent domain for urban redevelopment. Why should families who are struggling to pay for their children’s college also being asked to fund stipends from the government for those who want to write their dissertation on certain government-preferred policies? At approximately $200,000 in grants per year, terminating this program would save $1 million over five years.

New Non-Reformed Welfare Program

$2.5 billion in savings

The program was recently created to incentivize states to increase their welfare caseloads without requiring able-bodied adults to work, get job training, or otherwise prepare to move off of taxpayer assistance. Reforming the welfare program was one of the great achievements of the mid 1990s, saving taxpayers billions of dollars and ending the cycle of dependency on welfare. This new program, created in 2009 is a backdoor way to undo those reforms. The program currently costs approximately $2.5 billion a year. (Also proposed as part of the RSC Sunset Caucus.)

Eliminate Wealthier Communities from CDBG

$2.6 billion in savings

This cut will focus federal economic development assistance to needy communities. The Community Development Block Grant program currently funds a wide range of local economic development activities, while it is advertised as a way to help low-income communities, funds are also dispersed to communities with income well-above the national average. A recent study found that the community of Newton, Massachusetts with a per capita income over twice the national average was receiving $28 per person in CDBG funds. At the same time, other communities with income 25% below the national average were receiving $10 per person. Restricting this program to only communities with income at or below 110% of national average income would save $2.6 billion over five years.
Get the information on how to vote here


Opus #6 said...

I hate that they have reversed welfare reform. Stupid! Wasteful! Bad for society!

joshuagorgol said...

I undrestand you may be a conservative girl, but I don't understand the mixed feelings. Liberal or Conservative the nations problems are both our problems.

Anonymous said...

For 6 years the house, senate and white house were controlled by "conservatives". They spent and spent and spent. Instead of "tax and spend" democrats we got "borrow and spend" republicans. This U-cut spins issues so you vote to kill them not knowing why they are there in the first place. Besides, As late as 2007 the Republicans could have killed all of them and didn't.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Google Analytics Alternative