Washington Watch Report on Wasteful Spending

The Plan to Take Back America

April 15, 2009

As we go to our tea parties today, we have to ask ourselves, what exactly is it we want?
If you or I were to be President of the United States, what would we strive to change about our government outside of the social issues that divide Democrat from Republican? What specifically do we want our Tea Parties to accomplish, other than blowing off some steam, facilitating a 60’s flashback and getting the attention of our congressmen and senators? Why do we go?

I believe that most Americans are down-to-earth, common sense folks who want to continue living in the United States of America, and not the North American Annex of Mainland China or Extreme Western Europe or CanAmMex. I believe that most people are so concerned about the direction our government is going that they are willing to make short-term personal and financial sacrifices to turn our economy around—including rallying on the court house steps.

We need to make our national financial stability our top priority to the exclusion and sacrifice (if necessary) of our pressing and divisive social issues. We especially need to put aside the Pro-Choice/Anti-Abortion discussion until the crisis is past. This single issue divides reasonable people who now need to work together to save our nation and way of life. Lay it down for a while. All the arguments will still be there if and when our nation is financially healthy again.

All of the answers to our financial woes aim toward getting control of our spending, balancing our budget and having a healthy national economy regardless of the global outlook. All of the answers have to do with getting representation in Washington that agrees with that premise and ousting the arrogant professional politicians who dance the beltway shuffle to the tune of the richest lobbyists while winking at the sentiments of their constituents back home, knowing they are going to use the P.A.C. money the lobbyists steer their way to buy votes back home to win another tour of our nations’ capitol so they can pander to lobbyists at the exclusion of the constituents. And the beat goes on . . .

When T.A.R.P. was presented for a vote last fall, phone calls in congressional offices were 90% against, yet, with 90% of the population of the country against this bill, it was passed by pious blow-hards in both the House and Senate who thought they knew better than the people who elected them how to handle this (we were told) dire situation. They failed to listen to their constituents.

And, more or less, we constituents were so used to our congressmen voting against us, that we grumbled a bit about it, and a few of us shrugged our shoulders, but we did nothing. We didn’t complain. We didn’t have a rally to picket the congressman’s office. We didn’t march on Washington. We didn’t send a letter or email condemning this vote. We didn’t even bother to pick up the phone to complain.

So they did it again!

They bailed out the banks, they bailed out A.I.G., they financed a stimulus bill, they passed an obese budget, they bailed out GM and Chrysler and, before you know it, our pockets were inside out, our jobs disappeared, we were paying our neighbor’s mortgage and yet they were still talking about spending more and more and more.

In addition to giving our tax dollars away at a record-breaking rate, our government has also been flirting with the International Monetary Fund about accepting a global currency. Allowing our money to be controlled by some unseen, non-U.S. interest is the same as volunteering for slavery. Did we elect these people? Do we even know who runs the organization? And do we know who runs that person?

Here is a brief outline of what I would propose if I were elected President:

My Fellow Americans:
What I am about to propose is going to be difficult, and not politically correct by anyone’s standards. I know that it’s harsh. But since I am not running for reelection, I don’t have to care if you like or dislike me. What I care about is what is best for the survival of our country. Therefore, I propose the following:

End illegal immigration

• We are no longer financing the medical care, social security, disability and education of people who are not citizens of the United States. They need to go home immediately. Starting next month, they will not receive any government money of any sort and their children will not be welcome in our school. This will immediately downsize our entitlement spending.
• If someone wants to immigrate to the United States, we have established ways to do that.
• Enforce the law.
• Enforce the borders, particularly the U.S./Mexican border. This is one place I am willing to spend money in order to save money.
• Think of the U.S. Border Patrol as your new national financial advisors.

End the War on Terrorism

• This war is draining our country’s coffers and no matter how you feel about the war, we can no longer afford it. Bring the boys home and sign them up for border patrol.
• We are going to need lots of help escorting all of the Illegals out of the country and keeping them out.
• It will take time to withdraw our troops overseas, but we should see a reduction in defense spending within 12 months.
• Send the C.I.A., Special Forces, or our best assassin squads over to the Middle East (or to whatever part of the globe is currently threatening us) to take care of those radical creeps.
• We can no longer afford to build schools and offer medical care to gently sway local opinion of the U.S., so we are going to go kick butt as efficiently as possible.
• And we’re not going to answer to anyone about our techniques as to whether we washed our hands before we pulled the trigger on these creeps who invade our country, blow up our buildings and cut off our heads on T.V.

Rewrite the maritime laws to encourage ships to carry their own security, particularly if they are going to be in known pirate infested waters.

• Our military does not have the resources to be everywhere at one time. Our citizens need to know that they have the right to defend their property and that the government will back them up on their actions.

No more earmarks

• Period.

No more bailouts

• All future failures of banks, insurance companies, auto builders and corporations should be viewed as capitalism in action and referred to bankruptcy court.
• In the U.S. of A., you have the right to succeed and you have the right to fail based on your own efforts.
• There is no industry which is so valuable that we will take away this right in order to spare a special interest segment of society pain in the wake of your demise.
• We’ll mourn you, and you’ll be replaced by a better-run, more efficient operation you if you can’t reinvent yourself in a profitable manner.
  

Restructure taxes

• No more income tax.
• The I.R.S. will be downsized but not eliminated. It will now focus on how the government spends taxpayer money and create a truly transparent accounting system we can understand.
• Consumption tax will be paid on all purchases.
• Consumption tax eliminates favoritism—all consumers pay tax when they purchase an item. The less you buy, the less you pay.
• This plan encourages business in a tax-free atmosphere
• This plan encourages tax-free savings
• This plan initially puts more money in the pockets of the consumers and immediately puts more money on the street to get commerce humming again.
• This may help to lower the initial cost of an item since there are no taxes collected or paid on it until it reaches the consumer.
• Taxes on imported goods: In order for our domestic goods to be financially competitive we need to tax the goods flowing over our borders from overseas. This will give our domestically produced goods made with domestically produced workers, a level starting point in a capitalistic market.
• Let’s call it the import tax and make all imported goods subject to a flat percentage tax.

We are not going to consult the United Nations before we make a decision, although we may inform them after the fact.

• On the other hand, we are going to inform the public before we do something and get their negative and positive input.
  

Eradicate Social Security and Disability payments for those people with an income over $100,000 or an estate over $1,000,000.

• This system is in place to help the neediest members of our society and should not be an automatic across the board benefit for all seniors, but only available to those that need it.
• I seriously considered asking for a 10% reduction in remaining Social Security and Disability payments but decided that most of this money is disposable and these folks need the money to pay their new consumption taxes, which may (in reality) constitute a reduction in income if the initial cost of goods produced is not lower as expected. Furthermore, we do not want to deliberately decrease the capitol flowing in our economy.

Finally, (and you're probably going to hate this one and call me un-american for this):

Revoke voting rights of everyone receiving government entitlements such as welfare, medicade or unemployment

• If you are receiving money from the government, living off other people's taxes, you are guaranteed to vote for whoever is going to extend or enhance your benefits and are not in a position to choose the best person for the postion.
• Voting rights will be restored as soon as you are self-sufficient.

Folks, we get the behavior we tolerate. We are responsible for the poor behavior of our elected officials. We have required too little of them and have not held them accountable for their actions.

Until now.

A Message to my Partisan Neighbors

After listening to my community whine on the local talk radio program yesterday about why they were not attending the Blair County Tea Party, I saw red and my head would have exploded if I had not used my handy-dandy, Glenn Beck duct tape to keep it together. This is my response to all of you short-sighted, mono-issue morons:

To all of you partisan Right-Wing, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Stem Cell Research, Bible-Thumping, Home-Schooling, Gun-Totin’ Conservatives, AND to all of you Left-Wing, Tree-Hugging, Gay Rights Promoting, Bailout-Addicted, Illegal-Alien-Lovin', Income Redistribution, Corporate-Takeover, Global Warming, Pro-Choice, Medical Care for Everyone, Liberals who insist on pounding their social platforms in the midst of an economic crisis—I have one question:

Do you like Chinese?

When I say Chinese I mean the language as well as the food.

And why would I ask such an off-the-wall and bazaar question?
Because it is relevant to our current situation:

Economic strength and stability = national security.

The United States of America now owes mainland China zillions of dollars and President Obama and his Secretary of Treasury are lately cozy with the International Monetary Fund and are “keeping an open mind” about a global currency.

Our economy is shaky enough that the Chinese could decide to call in their debts any day and what do we have to pay them with?

Dollars?

Pretty soon, they are not going to be worth the paper they are printed on.

Now with what are we going to pay them?

Right. (Think real estate and loss of human rights.)

But instead of putting our differences aside as our forefathers did to band together to fight a common enemy, some folks are insisting upon not participating in the local Tea Party because we are not including their laundry list of social agenda items.

Are you kidding me?

Folks, this economic situation is scary. If our government continues with its drunken spending of rampant earmarks and bailouts and stimulus packages and bulging budgets, and entitlement packages, we’re going to spend our way into becoming a colony again. The only difference is that this time, we’re not going to be sending our stamp taxes and tea taxes to the King of Great Britain, this time we’re going to be sending our taxes to Beijing.

And by the way, when we’re under China’s rule, they will dictate how many children we can have and enforce mandatory abortions.

But maybe we should smack each other over the head about the abortion/pro-choice issue and make that a priority instead?

Letter to my Congressman

Dear Mr. U.S. Representative,

First, thank you if you voted "No" on the bailout bill. I appreciate you fairly representing our district, since the phone calls to your office were nine to one in opposition to the bailout.

I am writing this letter because there is a rewrite occurring and another bill will be presented within the week.

We, the majority of the citizens of your district, do not want to bail out Wall Street, just as we did not want to bail out Freddy Mac & Fannie Mae, AIG or the auto makers, which means that it is time for you elected leaders to look to alternatives, such as bankruptcy, for the failing institutions.*

We, the citizens of the US believe in Capitalism and the freedom to thrive in business, or fall on your face. We also believe in the right to get back up and try again. We do NOT, however, believe in paying anyone for lying on the floor while we beg them to stand up again.

We are tired of throwing our tax dollars at failing corporations when we can barely afford to put gas in our cars, educate our children, heat our homes and pay for our healthcare and prescriptions.

It is against all of our common sense to give huge hunks of money to institutions and corporations who have JUST proven they are not responsible enough to manage them. Would you give a toddler a loaded gun? Of course not. Yet, you give failed institutions such as AIG, Freddy Mac & Fanny Mae zillions of OUR dollars. Why don't you try handing out dollars to someone who can multiply their pennies, such as my mother?

And in case you were thinking that you are just going to have to be super-slick in this instance to vote your party's mantra (both parties are chanting doomsday and catastrophe if we don't pass legislation and throw money at this problem) in deference of public opinion, let me remind you that I am watching and will see through all of your defensive double-talk and spin if you decide to vote along with the doomsday fat-cats.

Meanwhile, the White House, John McCain and Barak Obama are telling us how we MUST do something, that there will be a DISTASTER if we fail to act.

How dare they be so arrogant and pretentious as to act as though they "know better" what's good for the country than their constituents back in the home district? How dare they spout inflammatory cries of a "dire" future when we have never been in this position and they do not know how the financial markets will be affected.

How dare they assume that we would prefer to throw tax dollars at Wall Street than suffer through a recession or, worse, a depression.

My mother lived through a depression. Lots of parents and grandparents did. They'll tell you that it wasn't a lot of fun. However, my mother is glad to do it again before giving our money to every Joe Schmo Cancerous Corporation that falls over choking.

Maybe it's time we got away from exercising our plastic at the mall as a routine sport.

Maybe it's time we went back to hand-me-down clothes and slightly scuffed shoes.

Maybe it's time we styled our own hair and wore our real fingernails.

Maybe it's time we got back to growing our own garden and preserving our own food.

Maybe it's time we cut off the cable TV and read books for a few years.

Maybe it's time we pulled up our bootstraps and drove the same car for the next three years.

Maybe it's time we packed our lunch and avoided the drive-through dinner.

Maybe, if we go through some rough financial times, we'll be thankful for our meager financial blessings instead of demanding more, more, more like a spoiled toddler.

Frankly, Mr. US House of Representative, I believe I need to remind you of one more item: You do not work for the lobbyists, your party, or even the President of the United States. You work for me. You are not to decide how to vote. You are to push the 'Yeah' or 'No' button only after you have determined how I feel about an issue--not after consulting your party chairman or your over-paid political consultant on the election fallout of each vote.

And if and when you forget that little fact, I'll remind you at the next election.

Signed,
Your Watchful Constituent,
Leslie Hayes

*see article from Harvard Economist, Jeffrey A. Miron, pasted below.

Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer
By Jeffrey A. MironSpecial to CNN

Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.
Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.


Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.
So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.