If Not Now, When Mr. Speaker?

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am writing to you in regards to the debt ceiling vote taken in the house yesterday. As a concerned citizen and a member of The Tea Party I am more than a tad disappointed. I am not writing to call you a traitor or some of the other names I have heard bandied about in the conservative blogosphere. I understand the position that you are in. I understand that there is a difference between campaigning and governing. I also get that in the real world governing requires compromise. I also realize that this was probably the best you could get with the current make up of the senate and the white house. My question is if not now when? When we will get our spending under control?


I get that many in this country don't see the seriousness of the problem and how our spending is totally out of control. My disappointment, Mr. Speaker, in you comes from the lack of messaging on your part. The job you have done with this debate is poor. The masses in America must be made to understand that not raising the debt ceiling meant default. We would only default if we didn't pay the massive interest on our debt. Money comes into the treasury monthly we could have paid our debt. Not paying the debt would be a choice. A choice made treasury and to some degree the president. You did not get this message across.


Where has the GOP been in discussing this? Why have you not found a charismatic spokesperson to be out front of this problem and explain the truth of what is going on? Where was the GOP to explain that President Obama was flat-out lying when he said he wasn't sure that there would be enough to mail social security checks? Social Security is not bound by the debt ceiling. There is enough money coming into the treasury to pay it monthly without it affecting the debt at all. Also where was someone calling out the hypocrisy of the left always saying that Social Security is not broke? If it isn't broke and has money the issue of not making the monthly payments never should have come up.


Where you have been to explain to the American people that China has sold most of our debt? Where have you been to explain that Japan is not in a position to pick up the slack? Where have you been to explain that China is now having its own debt problems? Our options are becoming more and more limited everyday. Why don't most Americans understand this? It is up to you to explain it to them.


I get that media isn't going to help all that much to get this message out. That just makes all the more important that you do.


Mr. Speaker I am not naive enough to believe that one election was going to stop the out of control spending spree this country has been on for far too long. But I had hoped that you would have started the building blocks for the larger discussion this country must have. The U.S. is running out of viable financial options.


The only hope we have of turning this around is to make the masses understand that they can no longer elect people who are not 100% committed to getting our financial house in order.


This is where my disappointment lies Mr. Speaker. I get the bill, I just don't get your lack of messaging. I want you to succeed Mr. Speaker. I did my part in the last election cycle; I made the phone calls, I gave the money in donations, I knocked on doors. It is now your turn to get the truth out there. America is broke - we must deal with it now.


Regards,




Just a Conservative Girl

How Low Are You Willing to Go?

There is no doubt that our spending is out of control.  Obama released his budget today and the spending cuts are way too small and too much spending.  Even democrats have been largely silent on it.  But the question is how much are you willing to cut? 

We have many difficult choices to make and I think it may be time that we start voicing how far we are willing to go. 

We have to raise the retirement age.  Not right away, but over time this has to be done.  People are living longer, so working for another few years will be necessary.  Of course we can make adjustments to certain blue collar jobs that cause health issues. 

For people who have a great deal of assets should be able to opt out of Medicare.  We may find that it will become mandatory at some point.  But where is that number? 

We will need to cut defense.  This is not something that is easy for me to say, but it is necessary.  Now, I am not saying that we do anything that endangers our readiness in case we are attacked, but I would think that we can find plenty of waste.  After all it is government run, I find it impossible to believe that there isn't waste. 

We need to cut the government workforce. 

We need to audit every government agency.  I know someone who works at agriculture I think it is.  She told me her job takes her about 3 or 4 hours a day and she stretches it out to make it look like she is busy all day.  That needs to stop.  Since I live in area that has many government workers I hear stories about waste all the time.  The government is not efficient by any stretch of the imagination.  We could probably cut the workforce by 25% and have no change in the services whatsoever.  They may even be better. 

Privatize the Post Office. 

Some agencies just need to go all together.  The Department of Education is a complete waste of money.  They have a $70 billion budget and not one single child gets educated for that.  We may need to keep a percentage of that money to give to the states, but this will be less wasteful.  The closer it gets to the classroom, the less likely it will be wasted. 

Many children in this country can be better educated in private schools for far less money.  Lets give families more choice. 


Government employees need to pay a larger percentage of health benefits.  Both on the state and national level. 

But these are pretty easy, and most thinking people will agree on these.  Now is where it gets more complicated.

Do we cut benefits to the men and women who have served our country in the armed forces? 

Do we cut benefits to the poorest amongst us? 

How much of the scientific and medical research and development do we cut? 

How much of foreign aid do we cut?  The more financially unstable countries are, the more likely they are to start a war.  History shows that.  Some of that aid is in our national interest. 

Do we give a one time buy out for Social Security to the very wealthy?  What happens if they run out of money before the die?

Do we partially privatize Social Security?  People were not ready hear that when Bush tried it.  Are they ready to hear it now?  Maybe not after the performance of the stock market over the past few years. 

We are running out of time for the choices to be ours.  If keep spending and borrowing the choices will be harder to make and even more painful. 

What are you willing to cut? 

Signs of Things to Come?

There are things in his record that I am not very happy with, but he does stand by his principles and is being honest.  We need to talk about the hard choices we are going to have to make.  We need many more of them willing to telling us the truth.  We are running out of money.  What about this doesn't the government understand? 

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

Paying the Max - Congressional Salaries

On the same day that we find out that our debt is now reaching epic levels that we more than likely will never be able to crawl out of, comes news about how much we are paying congressional staffers.  2,000 staffers are making salaries of six figures.  53 of which are making the maximum allowed; just under $175,000, another 80 are only raise away.

I know very well how hard these people work.  The work weeks are crazy, sometimes 14 to 16 hours per day, and some of those days are on weekends.  It is very difficult to have social life when you have a job on the hill, as you never know when that 16 hour day is coming.  I have no problem with them making a livable wage.  I do have a problem with them making this much money.  There is no reason that we are paying these types of salaries.  The reasoning behind it is said to be that they can make more in the private sector working for lobbyists.  The truth of the matter is that most lobbyists positions do not pay that well.  The ones who own the firm make that money, but the staff of the lobbyists do not. 

When reading this type of data it is no wonder that Americans are so fed up with how our government is currently behaving.  We cannot stay on this path of spending money that we do not have.  What are we doing to the next generation?  We must make the hard choices to reduce our debt.  Lowering these salaries is not a hard choice.