Eric Cantor Out as Majority Leader

A simply stunning outcome last night in Virginia.  A house majority leader loses in his party's primary.  Something that has never happened in the history of our country.  I personally thought that Cantor didn't take the race seriously enough but would still win out in the end.  I was wrong.  He lost by more than ten points.  

But I will say that people who don't understand the ins and outs of Virginia politics are getting some things wrong.  On the national stage they are talking about how Brat won on the amnesty issue.  There may be some of that in there, but it certainly wasn't the entire reason.  Cantor's view on immigration is exactly like Lindsay Graham's and he won easily.  

In Virginia there is no party registration.  As such whenever there is a primary anyone can vote.  It is very easy for people in the other party to show up at the polls and place a vote for a candidate that is most likely to lose to their candidate of choice.  As such, there is great deal of back and forth about conventions vs. primaries within the local political debate.  Cantor firmly falls on the primary side of the debate.  An issue that I agree with him on.  I personally feel that primaries are the most inclusive and that conventions put some voters into the position of not getting their voices heard. But even that isn't all of the story.  There is a parliamentary rule in Virginia called slating.  In slating when you get 50% of your district to agree to use this rule only a certain amount of people are allowed to vote in a convention or committee meeting.  So if you don't happen to fall into the chosen few, even if you are willing to travel the convention you can't vote.  

Many in Virginia have very strong feelings about slating.  Most of which are highly negative.  I personally believe that this is the rule and those who know the rules of the game best win.  So I am not going to put people who like this practice down.  They are following the rules of the game.  If you don't like the rules, get yourself into position within the local committee to change them.  Complaining and calling others cheaters doesn't solve anything.  My main point here is that Cantor and his camp really upset many people by using these rules.  At least that is the impression that many have.  Heaven knows that, especially in politics, perception is reality.  

David Brat had no money.  He spent somewhere around $200,000 total on his campaign, whereas Cantor spent more than that on one dinner for his supporters.  But what he did have was very dedicated volunteers that literally knocked on every door in that district that was marked as a republican.  Again, there is no party registration in the state, but voting habits get you listed as a D or an R.  Brat also did get some much needed help from two conservative radio talk show hosts.  Mark Levin, who lives in Virginia, and Laura Ingraham, who lives in D.C.  Both of them had him on their show and Ingraham did at least one rally with him.  Both have large audiences and it seems it had at least a little bit of an effect. 

There also was the issue that many in his district felt that he didn't listen to them.  That he was no longer representing them, but looking towards being the Speaker of the House when Boehner decides to step down.  He was next in line.  I have heard many in his district say that they didn't get return calls or letters when they would contact his office.  They felt he lost touch with what his job was supposed to be; representing them not worrying about consolidating his own power.  He rarely spent time in his own district. Another big difference between he and Lindsay Graham. Graham is very well known for being excellent on being there to listen to his voters.  His staff is actually larger in his state than in D.C.. 

For those in the media that are saying he (Brat) is some sort of right winged lunatic it is going to be difficult to get that to stick.  Cantor labeled him as the liberal in the race.  Cantor campaigned on being the true conservative.   His policies are simply basic republican fare.  He campaigned on giving power back to the states, the amnesty issue and the rule of law, reducing our national debt, and reigning in out of control government.  There is nothing extreme about those views.  That is what the GOP is supposed to be for.  

Another very interesting part of this story is how Brat campaigned.  He actually stood up and talked policies instead of platitudes.  He never made personal attacks on Cantor.  Many in the media called him a joke based on this alone.  

I think that Brat has shown that people are hungry to be talked to like adults.  They can understand policy issues and they aren't all that interested in the personal ugly side of politics.  That of course isn't going to go away anytime soon because they do work.  But a small shift is happening.  

I had no dog in this fight.  I see both sides of Cantor staying and Cantor going.  Politics is much like a marriage; a series of compromises.  But when those compromises almost always walk away from the basic tenets of what the party is supposed to stand for, it may be time for a change in leadership.  Cantor went after the tea party quite publicly.  While no national Tea Party "group" gave Brat the time of day, the local activists took notice and put the work in to show him that they are still there and are expecting results.  

The district is pretty conservative and I personally find it a good thing that dems are going to pour money into that district.  It is less they can use on other races.  It isn't impossible for a dem to win in that district, but it seems this is lining up to be a republican wave year much like 2010 and it isn't likely that dems can take advantage of Cantor's demise.   

Pelosi V. Cantor on Wall Street Protesters

"I didn't hear him say anything when the Tea Party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol. And he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them. But let's not get down to that."

Nancy Pelosi on Eric Cantor's statement that he was worried about the Wall Street Protesters.  So, let's see, first and foremost, the spitting never happened.  At least not in the context that Nanny would like people to believe in this statement.  The video evidence of what happened was found, quite a while ago in fact.  It was a say it don't spray it situation.  There was no intent to spit on any member of congress during any tea party.  The Tea Party was responsible for shutting down one of the offices of congress when after Speaker Pelosi's office refused to open the door, let alone speak to the protesters they ripped up paper from a copy of Obamacare.  I witnesses that event, and at the time said it was a bad idea to allow ourselves to be provoked in this manner.  But what wasn't widely reported was the fact that other members of the tea party went back into the building and help clean up the mess after the offices were re-opened. 

Here are the facts, not one person who was attending a Tea Party protest as a real member of the Tea Party has been arrested.  Now, when the left sends their agitators, they get arrested, or bite off some poot guy's finger, but no Tea Party member has been arrested.  We have never demanded to use the restrooms in private businesses even when though we are not paying customers of those businesses.  We have not taken over any park and said to hell with the people who live in that neighborhood.  When two young people walked through the crowd at the Glenn Beck rally last August wearing Obama T-shirts to provoke the crowd, they themselves said that only thing that was said to them is that they would prayed for.  Other than that, all they got was strange looks.  I am guilty of giving a strange look to them.  I couldn't understand why they were there. 

To say that there is a comparison between the Tea Party and the Wall Street protesters is ludicrous.  The Tea Party protesters bring lawn chairs and listen to speeches.  We watch over each other's things when you need to take a bathroom break, we keep an eye on each other's children, and then when the rally is over we get out our garbage bags and clean up any mess that may have been left behind.  We neatly fold our signs and put them in the nearest garbage we can find.  The place is left spotless.  We then go over and thank the police officers for giving us security so the counter protesters don't bother us. 

The Wall Street protesters do this:

I can guarantee you, you will never see this at a Tea Party protest. 
If this man is the 99%, I will proudly be part of the 1%. 

Repeal the Bill - Text to Cantor's Repeal for Obamacare

They are due to vote on this in just a few short days.  It will be interesting to see if the very few blue dogs that are left will stick by Pelosi now. 
112TH CONGRESS


1ST SESSION






H. R. __






To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions


in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.






IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. CANTOR (for himself and [see ATTACHED LIST of cosponsors]) introduced


the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on


____________


A BILL


To repeal the job-killing health care law and health carerelated


provisions in the Health Care and Education


Reconciliation Act of 2010.






Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,






SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act’’.






SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAWAND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN


THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.


(a) JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW.—Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111–148, such Act is re7


pealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.






(b) HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.—Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.

And So it Begins - Republican Leadership Making Plans to Hire Washington Insiders for New Congressional Members

Election day has not even happened yet and the RNC is already in full swing to keep the status quo.  The existing "leadership" and the RNC has already gone into it's resume bank to help the new members of congress hire their chiefs of staff.  While I understand that experience is important, this is really kicking the tea party in the teeth.


This effort is being led by none other than Congressmen John Boehner and Eric Cantor, the two top republicans in The House of Representatives.  Rumor has it that there is no real opposition to Boehner becoming The Speaker of the House and third in line to the presidency.  While I give a great deal of credit to both Cantor and Boehner for keeping the republican herd together over the past two years, I still question their commitment to a return to limited constitutional government. 

“You want to be sure that the newbies, when they hit town, do not necessarily bring their campaign staff to run their Congressional offices, because in some cases they are totally ill-equipped,” one veteran Republican lobbyist said. “Winning an election is one thing, running a Congressional operation is another. A lot of these folks are really, really new to politics.”


A Republican strategist agreed, saying Members who come from swing districts benefit from having a staffer who already “knows the ropes” on the Hill to keep them from making mistakes.


GOP leaders are also expected to take an active role in making sure incoming committee chairmen have acceptable staff directors leading the panels. With the potential for new leadership at the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Appropriations panel, the Steering Committee is expected to vet potential chairmen’s choices for the most senior staff level, according to several Republican lobbyists.


“Those are very important committees,” one former GOP leadership aide said. “They do the lion’s share of the work in the House. There’s no doubt leadership would have an interest in who would be the staff director.”

The Tea Party has spent the better part of the last two years protesting, writing letters, sending e-mails, and making phone calls to limit the power of the federal government.  We have stood firm on the subject of limited government.  Had the tea party not been as vocal as it has been we would have much more damaging legislation passed; card check, cap and tax, and heavens knows what else.  The republicans were unable to stop anything, the tea party stopped it. 


This is the same tactic that was used by the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, not a good sign of things to come.  It seems that The Republican Party wrongly believes that we wanted a change of leadership.  What we want is a change of the culture in Washington.  We want them to take their constitutional responsibilites seriously.  If they will not, we will just go through this process of cleaning them out again in two years. 

A Look at the National Debt - Cantor's Endgame

Have the Republicans Learned their Lesson?

Congress spends tax payer funds like drunken sailors.  One of the reasons that we are in the mess that we are in, is because the Republicans lost their way when it comes to fiscal responsibility.  They have been telling us for the past two years that they have learned their lesson. 

This little nugget makes me wonder.  Congress spends so much more money than any of us realize.  They have duplicate programs and offices after duplicate programs and offices.  One of which is called House Republican Policy Committee. “develop sound legislative ideas into meaningful legislation.”  is the idea behind this position.  Sounds fine except for the fact that their are two other offices that do pretty much the exact same thing; House Republican Conference and the Republican Study Committee.  Not only that, all the top leadership offices have staff (that are very well paid, by the way) that work on policy as well. 

The cost of this office to the tax payer is only tiny fraction of the federal budget (about $360K annually), but this office has been in existence for more than 60 years; it starts to add up after a while.  Most families in this country live on much less.  The ranking member of this committee is Thad McCotter (MI).  He has decided to put this office on the chopping block and his reasoning is to show the American public that they are serious when it comes to reduce spending and get our budget under control. 

The problem is that the leadership doesn't want to give up this office.  Why?  Apparently appointment to head this committee is used to reward a close ally or even to appease someone who may run against you for a leadership position.  Eric Cantor and his deputy Kevin McCarthy are not willing to bring it up for a vote in the republican caucus to stop the funding of the program. 

So one must question have they really learned their lesson?  Let's hope so, because this country can no longer afford all of this out of control spending. 

You Cut Week 3 Winner

Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac


Savings estimated at $30 billion.

Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored mortgage-backing companies, taxpayers have injected over $145 billion into the two companies. Yet Congress still has not considered proposals to reform these companies and recoup taxpayer funds. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that absent reform, costs to taxpayer will continue to grow. Taking action to reform these companies now (as opposed to delaying action as some have proposed) by ending their government conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure could generate savings of up to an estimated $30 billion.

The Bill to Cut this failed. 
 
 
This Week's Vote:
 
Sell Excess Federal Property


Potential savings of up to $15 billion

The Office of Management and Budget estimated in 2007 that the federal government is holding $18 billion in real property that it does not need. Rather than selling this property, however, Federal law usually requires that it first be offered, often at no cost, to other government agencies, to state and local governments, to non-profits, and others. The federal government has conveyed at no cost: a building in Las Vegas that is intended to house the “mob museum,” land in Massachusetts for a private high school where tuition is over $29,000 a year, and a building in Florida that the federal government now leases back at a cost of over $100,000 a year. In addition, because of the red tape associated with selling property, federal agencies often hold onto the property (incurring more maintenance costs) because that is easier than selling it. This proposal would amend federal law to require an expedited process for selling unneeded federal property with 80% of the proceeds used to reduce the deficit. It would set an initial goal of disposing of $18 billion worth of property.


Terminate Duplicative Federal Bicycle and Walking Program

Saves $183 million a year or $1.8 billion over ten years

Created in 2005, the Federal "Safe Routes to Schools Program" finances both infrastructure and non-infrastructure (10 to 30% of total funding) projects to "empower communities to make walking and bicycling to school a safe and routine activity once again." The infrastructure components of this program, such as sidewalks and bike paths, have traditionally been viewed as local responsibilities. The non-infrastructure portion includes items such as public awareness campaigns and training volunteers. The program even requires that every state employ a full-time person dedicated to coordinating this federal program despite the fact that the law already requires every state to employ a separate full-time person to coordinate bicycle and pedestrian activities. Returning these responsibilities to state and local officials and removing federal mandates would generate savings for taxpayers.



Terminate New Federal Truck Parking Facilities Program

Saves $6.25 million a year

($62.5 million over ten years)

Created in 2005, the Federal government currently spends $6.25 million for a Truck Parking Facilities program. This program was created to provide government funding for projects that will facilitate long-term truck parking, including the potential construction of long-term truck parking facilities that would compete with private truck stop operators. Given that this program didn’t exist five years ago and given that truck stops and rest areas are more appropriately managed by private enterprise and state governments, terminating this program is a sensible way to generate savings for taxpayers.


Terminate Security Funding for Private Bus Companies

Saves $12 million a year

($120 million over ten years)

Launched in 2003, this program has provided over $83 million in grants mainly to private bus companies to help finance their security initiatives. The Administration has also proposed terminating this program arguing that the grants “"are not based on a risk assessment" and that private companies can make these investments without federal funding. By requiring bus companies to fund their own security initiatives, taxpayers can save $12 million a year.



Terminate the Ready to Learn Television Program

Saves $27 million a year

($270 million over ten years)

Created to subsidize the development of educational television programming targeted at elementary school age students and their parents, the program has failed to demonstrate that it is improving educational attainment. Even the Department of Education has said that many of the shows and projects funded under this Act failed to meet their standards for “high quality.” Perhaps because of these concerns, the Administration has proposed shifting funds from this program into other areas. Simply terminating the program, however, would eliminate the subsidy, generate savings for the taxpayer, and reduce the deficit.

Go Here to Vote

And the "You Cut" Week 2 Winner Is:

Eliminate the Proposed Federal Employee Pay Raise


Approximately $2 Billion in the First Year

(Approximately $30 Billion Over Ten Years)

As part of his budget, President Obama proposed providing federal civilian employees with a 1.4% pay raise next year. This year Federal employees received a 2% raise and since the year 2000 have received raises averaging 3.6% a year. USA Today recently reported that the typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation (median salary). This doesn’t include the value of benefits like health care and retirement. This proposal would expand upon the just enacted legislation to prevent Members of Congress from receiving a pay raise. This proposal would not impact the scheduled 1.4% pay raise for those in the military.

Week 3
 
Refocus National Archives Activities On Preserving Federal Records


$10 million in Savings in the First Year

($100 Million Over Ten Years)

The National Archives and Records Administration and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission are charged with managing Federal records. However, they also spend approximately $10 million a year on grants for state and local governments, universities and other institutions to preserve and publish non-Federal records. While a worthwhile goal, the federal government also spends $167.5 million a year on the National Endowment for the Humanities and $282 million for the Institute for Museum and Library Services which can and sometimes do fund projects towards similar ends. Refocusing the National Archives on its core mission of preserving Federal records would save taxpayers $10 million next year and $100 million over ten years.


Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Savings estimated at $30 billion.

Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored mortgage-backing companies, taxpayers have injected over $145 billion into the two companies. Yet Congress still has not considered proposals to reform these companies and recoup taxpayer funds. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that absent reform, costs to taxpayer will continue to grow. Taking action to reform these companies now (as opposed to delaying action as some have proposed) by ending their government conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure could generate savings of up to an estimated $30 billion.


Terminate Broadcasting Facility Grant Programs that Have Completed their Mission

$25 million in Savings in the First Year

($250 million Over Ten Years)

In his most recent budget, President Obama proposed terminating the Public Broadcasting Grants at the Department of Agriculture and the Public Telecommunications Facilities Grants Program at the Department of Commerce. The president's budget justified terminating these programs, noting that: "Since 2004, the USDA Public Broadcasting Grants program has provided grants to support rural public television stations’ conversion to digital broadcasting. Digital conversion efforts mandated by the Federal Communications Commission are now largely complete, and there is no further need for this program." ...additionally: "Since 2000, most PTFP awards have supported public television stations' conversion to digital broadcasting. The digital television transition was completed in 2009, and there is no further need for DOC’s program."


Reduce Spending on Non-Essential and Questionable Research

$3.8 Million in Savings in the First Year

Since passage of the stimulus bill in February of 2009, watchdogs and media outlets have identified countless examples of wasteful, unnecessarily duplicative, and outrageous expenditures. Unfortunately, most of these expenditures only come to light after the money has been spent. This is particularly true in the area of research grants. Examples of grants made with stimulus funds about which questions have been raised after the grant was awarded include: a study on why young adults use malt liquor and marijuana in combination ($389,357); the impact of alcohol on the “hookup” behavior of female college coeds ($219,000); studying whether mice become disoriented when they consume alcohol ($8,408); developing a program for "machine-generated humor" ($712,883); studying methamphetamines and the female rat sex drive ($28,900); studying the tension between privacy and features in online social networks like Facebook ($498,000); testing how to control private home appliances in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts from an off-site computer ($787,250); developing the next generation of football gloves ($150,000); examining the division of labor in ant colonies ($950,000); and studying the Icelandic Arctic environment in the Viking Age ($94,902). While we cannot recapture money that has already been spent, this proposal would reduce funding dollar-for-dollar at each agency that approved the grants described above.


Consolidate and Reduce Funding for Federal Advisory Committees

$34 million in Savings in the First Year

($170 Million Over Five Years)

In 2008, the Federal government spent $342 million on 917 active Federal Advisory Committees. These committees had nearly 64,000 total members. Many of these committees are duplicative. For example, the National Endowment for the Arts spent $1.3 million on two separate advisory panels, both of which makes recommendations to the NEA chairman. At the U.S. Geological Survey, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee actually recommended the creation of the National Earthquake Prediction Council. Now taxpayers fund both committees at a cost of nearly $200,000 a year. These earthquake committees are in addition to a third committee run by the Department of Commerce that costs taxpayers another $43,000. In 2005, the Department of Interior even created an advisory committee to advise it on dog management at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Three years later, this committee cost taxpayers $41,000. Consolidating existing advisory committees and with a goal of reducing overall funding by 10% would save taxpayers $34 million next year and $170 million over five years.
 
 
vote here

And the "You Cut" Winner Is:

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.)


The programs to vote on this week are as follows:

Byrd Honors Scholarships


$42 Million in Savings in the First Year

($420 Million Over Ten Years)

The Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarships program provides grants to States to provide $1,500 a year scholarships for up to four years to high-performing high school students entering an undergraduate course of study. The Obama Administration proposed terminating this program in their annual budget, stating "Byrd Scholarships are only available to a small number of elite students (around 0.3 percent of first-time postsecondary students receive the scholarship), and States are prohibited from considering financial need when awarding the scholarships. Reliable performance data are not available, and the design of the program suggests these scholarships do not generally facilitate postsecondary education opportunities that would not otherwise be possible for awardees. Given the high academic performance of the students who receive the award, many of these students would still enter an undergraduate course of study and graduate even without receiving the scholarship."


Eliminate the Proposed Federal Employee Pay Raise

Approximately $2 Billion in the First Year

(Approximately $30 Billion Over Ten Years)

As part of his budget, President Obama proposed providing federal civilian employees with a 1.4% pay raise next year. This year Federal employees received a 2% raise and since the year 2000 have received raises averaging 3.6% a year. USA Today recently reported that the typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation (median salary). This doesn’t include the value of benefits like health care and retirement. This proposal would expand upon the just enacted legislation to prevent Members of Congress from receiving a pay raise. This proposal would not impact the scheduled 1.4% pay raise for those in the military.


Suspend Federal Land Purchases

$266 Million in Savings in the First Year

($2.66 Billion Over Ten Years)

Last year Congress spent $266 million acquiring additional federal lands at the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. This is a 138% increase over the comparable amount of funding just four years ago. Given that the federal government already owns 29% of the land in America and has a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog to maintain current land holdings, suspending new federal land purchases for five years would permit the government to focus on maintaining existing property while also saving taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

Terminate Funding for UNESCO

$81 Million in Savings in the First Year

($810 Million Over Ten Years)

Last year the administration proposed deleting the Department of Education’s attaché to UNESCO saving approximately $632,000 a year. Terminating U.S. support for UNESCO entirely would save taxpayers $81 million annually. The U.S. had not supported UNESCO for 19 years prior to the decision by the Bush Administration to rejoin in 2003. UNESCO routinely undertakes activities that are properly the responsibility of individual countries and their governments, including reviewing and making recommendations in areas related to education, arts, culture, ethics, science and technology, and historic preservation. UNESCO recently came under fire for their proposed International Guidelines for Sexuality Education. Membership provides little benefit to American taxpayers in light of the overall cost.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies

Approximately $1 Million in Savings in the First Year

($10 Million Over Ten Years)

Federal price support for mohair was first enacted in 1947. The National Wool Act of 1954 established direct payments for wool and mohair producers. The purpose of the program was to encourage production of wool because it was considered an essential and strategic commodity. According to the Congressional Research Service, no similar purpose was stated for the mohair program. While this program was phased out in 1995, ad hoc payments were provided in 1999 and 2000 and the program was reinstituted in 2002. Eliminating this program once again would save taxpayers approximately $1 million a year. (Also proposed as part of the RSC Sunset Caucus.)


To vote go here

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