Federal Spending:
A Realistic Spending Plan

May 1, 2010:

House Votes "NO" on Pay Raise

Policitians are in damage control in this election cycle, no doubt about it. This past Tuesday, the House voted to block its annual pay raise.

The motion passed 402-15. Here are the fifteen no voters...all Democrats:

Clyburn (SC-06)

Conyers (MI-14)

Edwards, D. (MD-04)

Ellison (MN-05)

Jackson Lee, S. (TX-18)

Johnson, E. (TX-30)

Kilpatrick (MI-13)

Lee (CA-09)

Meeks, G. (NY-06)

Moran, James (VA-08)

Payne, D. (NJ-10)

Thompson, B. (MS-02)

Towns (NY-10)

Watt (NC-12)

Woolsey (CA-06)

BOSTON HERALD

May 7, 2010

Full article Senator Scott Brown BOSTON HERALD

2009 $1.4 Trillion

2010 Estimate $1.6 Trillion

Total $3.0 Trillion

Fiscal year Surplus or deficit

2001 +$128 billion_______________________

2002 -$158 billion

2003 -$378 billion

2004 -$413 billion

_____________________-$949 Billion

2005 -$318 billion

2006 -$248 billion

2007 -$161 billion

2008 -$459 billion

_____________________-$1.186

Total -$2.135 Trillion

Source: White House

Loss of Credit Rating

U.S. Heading Toward Loss of AAA Rating

KIPLINGER.COM

Lots of Tax Hikes Coming in 2011

Tax increases will hit businesses and individuals, and don’t think for a minute that only the wealthy will feel the pain.

By Joan Pryde, Senior Tax Editor, the Kiplinger letters

April 24, 2009

Full article Joan Pryde KIPLINGER.COM

Excerpts:

Think taxes are too high now? Just wait: Congress is all but certain to raise them a couple of years from now. Tax increases will hit both businesses and individuals -- and not just singles making more than $200,000 a year and married couples over $250,000 a year. They’ll be the first to get pinched, but not the last. There’s just not enough revenue that can be drawn from the wealthy without crippling the economy, so in time, middle incomers will feel a bigger bite, too.

Higher taxes will be part of a major overhaul designed to simplify the tax code, though it won’t do more than tinker around the edges. The legislation will have cuts as well as hikes, though more of the latter. Putting everything in a catchall piece of legislation dilutes opposition to any one unpopular provision. Figure on tax increases taking effect in 2011, assuming the economy is growing steadily. At that point, reducing the deficit will be the top priority. The debt is simply unsustainable over the long term.

Here’s what’s rising to the top of the list of probable hikes for individuals:

* Boosts in top marginal rates from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%. No change in the other marginal rates seems likely.

* A higher rate on capital gains and dividends, but only for those in the top brackets. They will probably be hit with a 20% rate, though it could go a little higher.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses

By BRODY MULLINS and LOUISE RADNOFSKY

April 1, 2009

Full article BRODY MULLINS and LOUISE RADNOFSKY> Wall Street Journal/a>

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON -- While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.

Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information.

Total end-of-year bonuses paid to congressional staffers are tiny compared with the $165 million recently showered on executives of American International Group Inc., which is being propped up by billions of dollars of U.S. government subsidies. But Capitol Hill bonuses provide a notable counterpoint to the populist rhetoric and sound bites emanating from Washington these past weeks.

Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Governors v. Congress

The stimulus sets a long-term budget trap for the states.

FEBRUARY 23, 2009, 8:04 A.M. ET

Full article Wall Street Journal

Excerpts:

Debt-laden state governments were supposed to be the big winners from the $787 billion economic stimulus bill. But at least five Republican Governors are saying thanks but no thanks to some of the $150 billion of "free" money doled out to states, because it could make their budget headaches much worse down the line. And they're right.[Review & OUtlook] AP

The National Governors Association winter meeting in Washington, Saturday, Feb. 21, 2009.

These Governors -- Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- all have the same objection: The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs. Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.

Consider South Carolina. Its annual budget is roughly $7 billion and the stimulus will send about $2.8 billion to the state over two years. But to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to the likes of Head Start, child care subsidies and special education, the state will have to enroll thousands of new families into the programs. "There's no way politically we're going to be able to push people out of the program in two years when the federal money runs out," Mr. Sanford says.

REAL CLEAR POLITICS

February 01, 2009

The Recidivist Congress

By George Will

February 1, 2009

Full article George Will REAL CLEAR POLITICS

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON -- "Recidivism" is Rep. Jim Cooper's laconic explanation of why he, although only 54, has spent portions of five decades on Congress' payroll. Responding with aphorisms (e.g., "Bad government starts at the grass roots") to the tedium of Congress' culture of avoidance, he grows more laconic as the welfare state's implosion approaches.

The son of a Tennessee governor, Cooper, a Democrat who represents Nashville, was a congressional page starting in 1969 and then a Rhodes Scholar before being elected to Congress in 1982. Having run unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1994, he returned to the House in 2002. A mordant Cassandra ("If members of Congress were paid on commission to cut spending we'd see fabulous results"), he is no longer astonished by Congress' bipartisan avoidance of the predictable crisis coming to the big three entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

"Astonishing," says Cooper of the new president's avowed determination to confront the crisis. Leadership, says Cooper, who has seen precious little of it concerning entitlements, enlarges the number of "things that can be talked about." Such as the Social Security payroll tax, which Cooper would cut for several stimulative years from 12.4 percent to 8 percent. It suppresses job-creation, is raising more revenue than Social Security is dispensing and will continue to do so until 2017. The surplus is invested in Treasury bonds. That amounts to lending it to the government "which in turn," Cooper says, "spends it on everything except Social Security."

CATO@LIBERTY

Previous: Is the New Obama Administration Walking Away from Transparency Already?

Can We Afford All This Spending? No We Can’t.

Posted by David Boaz

Full article David Boaz Cato

Excerpts:

President Obama says that “our economy is badly weakened,” partly because of “our collective failure to make hard choices.” And that when government programs don’t work, “programs will end.” Yet he continues to press for a spending program that apparently only begins at $825 billion.

In 1993 a Democratic Congress failed to pass President Clinton’s request for a $16.3 billion stimulus package. A year ago Congress passed a $150 billion stimulus bill proposed by President Bush, a fitting cap to Bush’s massive increase in federal spending.

It had no apparent effect.

And now, in a continuing ratcheting up of spending levels, President Obama and Congress propose to spend the not-very-long-ago unimaginable sum of roughly a trillion dollars. As Chris Edwards wrote recently, we’re already looking at deficits of two trillion dollars in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. If that much deficit spending doesn’t do the Keynesian trick, do we really expect that another trillion dollars will?

THE HILL

Bailout backlash

By Brent Budowsky

Posted: 12/16/08 05:17 PM [ET]

Full article Brent Budowsky THE HILL

Excerpts:

Americans have begun an angry backlash against bailouts that could become a national revolt in 2009.

The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates by some 500 basis points. Government agencies have poured close to $8 trillion into banking bailouts. The Treasury secretary has promoted massive government support of troubled, failed and corrupted institutions.

This program is a 100 percent top-down exercise involving the largest amount of money in history.

THE STATE

SOUTH CAROLINA

DeMint to the Republican rescue?

Nov. 30, 2008

Full article THE STATE

Excerpts:

Former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, head of the right-wing Club for Growth, wrote a blast e-mail to true believers last week endorsing DeMint for a seat on the Senate Finance Committee.

With the Nov. 4 defeat of Republican U.S. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Gordon Smith of Oregon, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky will have at least one seat on the committee to fill.

REAL CLEAR POLITICS

November 30, 2008

New New Deal Won't Help the Economy

By George Will

Full article George Will RCP

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON -- Early in what became the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes was asked if anything similar had ever happened. "Yes," he replied, "it was called the Dark Ages and it lasted 400 years."

It did take 25 years, until November 1954, for the Dow to return to the peak it reached in September 1929. So caution is sensible concerning calls for a new New Deal.

The assumption is that the New Deal vanquished the Depression. Intelligent, informed people differ about why the Depression lasted so long.

But people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal.

Federal Spending

In 1939, after a decade of frantic federal spending -- President Herbert Hoover increased it more than 50 percent between 1929 and the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt -- unemployment was 17.2 percent.

"I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started," lamented Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary. Unemployment declined when America began selling materials to nations engaged in a war America would soon join.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

NOVEMBER 15, 2008

Don't Bail Out My State

South Carolina's governor says more debt isn't the answer.

By MARK SANFORD

Full article Mark Sanford Wall Street Journal

Excerpts:

I find myself in a lonely position. While many states and local governments are lining up for a bailout from Congress, I went to Washington recently to oppose such bailouts. I may be the only governor to do so.

But I suspect I'm not entirely alone, as there are a lot of taxpayers who aren't pleased with Christmas coming early for politicians. And I hope these taxpayers make their voices heard before Democrats load up the next bailout train for states with budget deficits.

Several questions led me to oppose bailing out the states. They are worth asking, even if you supported bailing out Wall Street.

Who bails out the "bail-outor"?

Drew Carey talks about government power and all the things it bans

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Republicans Are in Denial

By TOM COBURN

May 27, 2008; Page A21

Full article WSJ

Excerpts:

As congressional Republicans contemplate the prospect of an electoral disaster this November, much is being written about the supposed soul-searching in the Republican Party. A more accurate description of our state is paralysis and denial.

Custom Search

Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn't good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising

REAL CLEAR POLITICS

May 19, 2008

Greedy Government vs. America's Freedom

By Deroy Murdock

Full articles RCP

Excerpts:

Americans finally will start working for themselves today rather than for their government masters. This milestone arrives two days later than in 2007, clearly proving that the era of big government is back with a vengeance. May 19 is Friedman Day, when the Massachusetts-based American Institute for Economic Research calculates that citizens finally will have toiled long enough to fund local, state, and federal spending.

Freidman Day is not to be confused with the Tax Foundation's Tax Freedom Day, when Americans' aggregate annual income collectively finances each year's municipal, state, and national taxes. This year's Tax Freedom Day fell on April 23, three days earlier than in 2007. "Tax Freedom Day shows that Americans are working fewer days to pay their taxes now than they did in 2000," AIER's Kerry Lynch wrote last April 15. Tax Freedom Day peaked on May 3, 2000, near the end of President Bill Clinton's administration but before President G. W. Bush signed multiple tax cuts.

Lynch added: "Friedman Day shows that it is not because the government is spending less, but because it is borrowing more, in the name of tomorrow's taxpayers."

VISIT: CEI

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (CEI)

by Richard Morrison

May 8, 2008

1. CONGRESS

An agreement over major farm legislation appears increasingly unlikely.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Adjunct Analyst Fran Smith on what the farm bill would do for sugar producers:

“The current sugar program – which has expired but has been extended with other 2002 farm programs — is a system of price supports, domestic production restrictions, and restrictions on sugar imports. The new bill would distort the market even further. It would raise the price supports for U.S. sugar cane and sugar beets, thus guaranteeing sugar producers twice the world price; provide domestic producers with 85 percent of the U.S. market, and protect them from competition by turning imported sugar into ethanol. The Sweetener Users — a coalition of food, beverage, and confectioners pushing for reform of the sugar program — estimates that the farm bill will cost consumers about $2 billion over five years.”

VISIT: Club For Growth

May 8, 2008

SENATE Key Vote Alert - Flood Insurance

Key Vote Alert

KEY VOTE ALERT "NO" on Nelson Amendment to Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 (S. 4709)

The Club for Growth urges all Senators to vote "NO" on the Nelson Amendment (S. Amendment 4709) to the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 (S. 2284). This key vote will be part of our 2008 Congressional Scorecard.

This proposal would direct the Treasury Secretary to offer subsidized funding for state-run insurance programs, whether responsibly designed or not, potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for more billions of dollars in losses.

This amendment is fiscally irresponsible, and would further distort insurance markets and encourage unwise risk taking that would endanger lives and property. Perhaps the worst feature of this amendment is that it would encourage an irresponsible design of state catastrophe funds.

This reckless add-on to an already bankrupt national flood insurance program could dramatically increase spending and lead to higher taxes. It would clearly crowd out private reinsurance coverage, allowing government to increase its bureaucracy at the expense of the private sector. This amendment should be vigorously opposed.

Our Congressional Scorecard for the 110th Congress provides a comprehensive rating of how well or how poorly each member of Congress supports pro-growth, free-market policies and will be distributed to our members and to the public.

Visit: Club For Growth

HOUSE Key Vote Alert - Tax Prevention Act

Key Vote Alert

KEY VOTE ALERT Pass the Tax Increase Prevention Act (H.R. 2734)

The Club for Growth urges Members of the House to support the Tax Increase Prevention Act (H.R. 2734) by voting "NO" on the previous question for the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008, which is expected to be offered today, and a "YES" on H.R. 2734 itself. This key vote will be scored on the Club for Growth's 2008 Congressional Scorecard.

This proposal does one thing - it would make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent.

We need to reinvigorate our struggling economy by freeing up more capital, allowing people and businesses to invest and produce more. We also need to give financial markets the certainty of permanent, low tax rates, giving people the confidence to make long-term, pro-growth business decisions.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, it will result in the largest tax increase in the history of our country, resulting in an average household tax hike of $3000. That would devastate our economy and cripple our ability to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy.

April 8, 2008

Visit: Club For Growth

Fossella Says 'No' to Pork Projects

Andrew Roth

Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY-13) has sworn off earmarks! His office just confirmed it with me. In fact, this is the second year in which the Congressman has not made any requests. With Fossella, there are now 40 House members not requesting earmarks this year. With 7 anti-pork Senators, we are only 3 lawmakers away from the Big 50.

Can we get there? I think so.

Los Angeles Times

March 21, 2008

Farm bill feeds greed

Full article LA Times

Excerpts:

Soaring prices for corn, wheat and other agricultural commodities aren't just contributing to inflation, they're increasing hunger and misery among the poor. Confronted with a chance to help, Congress is instead on a path to boost corporate welfare for wealthy farmers.

There is much to dislike in the most recent farm bill, the five-year plan for agricultural subsidies and food stamps, but there's something to like as well. The House version would increase spending on nutrition programs -- mostly meaning food stamps but also including emergency domestic food aid and school lunch assistance -- by $11.5 billion over 10 years. That is a desperately needed life preserver for the indigent. Yet as the House and Senate struggle to reconcile their separate bills, they've hit a serious roadblock. They're about $10 billion over their spending limit, prompting a veto threat from President Bush. That puts the gains for food stamps in serious danger.

For what it's worth, Bush is dead right. Congress is relying on accounting shenanigans to make the farm bill's numbers pencil out, and the bill continues to give outrageous handouts to millionaire farmers at a time when farm income is skyrocketing. The 2002 farm bill should have expired in October, but it has been repeatedly extended as Congress tries to break the impasse; the latest deadline is April 18.

From: Competitive Enterprise Institute

Less is More

Crews Article in The American Spectator

by Clyde Wayne Crews

Full article Clyde Wayne Crews Competitive Enterprise Institute

Excerpts:

As Democrats and Republicans in Congress group hug over their $150 billion smoke-and-mirrors redistributionist stimulus package, the deficit is projected to top $400 billion.

Federal spending now straddles the $3 trillion mark, the bulk of it from America's entitlements, health, and defense budget bonanzas. The same government that claims to stimulate spends over 20 percent of this nation's $13 trillion annual economic output.

A drop in this big bucket, the stimulus represents a nervous exercise to avoid blame in November and obscure the fact that a recession, if it comes, must be ridden out -- if not now, then months or years later when the re-adjustments could be even more painful. But by then, of course, it will be a problem for other politicians.

Federal Spending March 19, 2008

Club For Growth

March 19, 2008

'Massive Influx' of Pork Projects

Andrew Roth

The deadline for House members to submit their earmark requests to the Appropriations Committee was today. However, the committee just sent out this email:

Dear Member Offices:

As a result of the massive influx of requests being submitted today, the Appropriations Committee website is experiencing unavoidable access and processing delays.

In order to accommodate Member offices attempting to input data, any request submitted by 11:59 p.m. on Monday, March 24th will be considered as having been submitted “on time” for purposes of consideration by the Committee.

Despite all the talk, all of the protests, and all of the opposition, lawmakers are still fighting to get a spot at the trough. Shame on them.

Center for Economic Prosperity

Denial and Delay

Pretending there isn’t a budget problem won’t make it go away

Byron Schlomach

Goldwater Institute

February 25, 2008

Full article To Byron Schlomach Goldwater Institute

Excerpts:

Several states are facing some tough fiscal times. California’s overspending problem amounts to more than $14 billion for the 2009 fiscal year. New Jersey’s spending versus revenue gap could be $3.5 billion. Virginia and Massachusetts each face $1.2 billion gaps. Arizona’s gap for 2009 is estimated at $1.7 billion.

Compared to California’s fiscal problem, Arizona’s looks like chump change. But here’s “the rest of the story.” As a percentage of general revenue spending, Arizona’s 2009 spending/revenue gap is the biggest of all the states’. California’s gap is 14 percent of its budget. New Jersey’s is 11 percent. Arizona’s spending/revenue gap for 2009 is 16 percent of the state’s general fund spending.

Facts Compiled By Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council

Raymond J. Keating

Chief Economist

Percent Change in Total Federal Outlays

Federal Spending

Fiscal Year Percent Change

2002 7.9%

2003 7.4%

2004 6.2%

2005 7.8%

2006 7.4%

2007 2.8%

2008 (estimated) 7.4%

2009 (proposed) 6.0%

That's an eight-year average increase of 6.6%. Meanwhile, the annul inflation rate (as measured by the GDP price deflator, including the budget's estimates for 2008 and 2009) will average only 2.5 percent. The Bush budget era has been one of very rapid increases in federal spending.

But isn't that because of the war on terrorists, including in Afghanistan and Iraq? Well, let's see what happens when we pull national defense spending out of the mix.

Percent Change in Total Federal Outlays Less National Defense Outlays

Federal Spending

Fiscal Year Percent Change

2002 6.7%

2003 5.6%

2004 4.7%

2005 7.6%

2006 7.9%

2007 2.1%

2008 (estimated) 6.7%

2009 (proposed) 4.7%

It remains an ugly spending picture, with an average annual increase of 5.7%. Still, far out pacing inflation - more than double the inflation rate, in fact.

Federal Spending

To Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council

###

Raymond J. Keating, Chief Economist

For Immediate Release Dec 31, 2007

For Further Information, Contact:

Peter J. Sepp, Natasha Altamirano, (703) 683-5700

Bush Should Ring in New Year by Wringing Out "Earmarks" in Spending Bill, Taxpayer Group Says

From: Full article

National Taxpayers Union NTU

Excerpts

(Alexandria, VA) -- It may be the end of the year, but it's not too late for President Bush to strike a blow against pork-barrel projects, according to the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU). Today NTU reiterated its support for an executive order that would direct federal agencies to ignore many of the 9,000-plus "earmarks" that Congress loaded on to the omnibus appropriations bill earlier this month.

"President Bush could make and fulfill a New Year's resolution for fiscal discipline all at once, by vowing to not implement Congress's sops to special interests," NTU Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp said. "As demonstrated earlier this year, the Chief Executive has the power to block spending on Congressional earmarks that are not specified in statutory law. He should exercise that authority now."

About two weeks ago, the House and Senate passed an omnibus appropriations package that combined discretionary funding for every agency into one giant bill, with the exception of the Department of Defense. Though the legislation has already passed, policy experts continue to uncover details of more than 9,000 earmarks buried in over 3,500 pages of legislation worth nearly $500 billion. Some of the lowlights include a $1.95 million project honoring Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), to help build the "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" at City College of New York. The bill also includes $213,000 for olive fruit fly research in France and $200,000 for a hunting and fishing museum in Pennsylvania.

Center for Economic Prosperity

Trust But Verify

Governments must tell us how our money is spent.

Byron Schlomach

Goldwater Institute Daily Email

January 02, 2008

Full article To Center For Economic Prosperity

Excerpts

“Trust but verify.” That’s how Ronald Reagan described his philosophy of dealing with the Soviet Union on nuclear arms reductions. It should also be our philosophy when it comes to how government spends our money.

As taxpayers we are required to send our money to various levels of government through a plethora of taxes and we are asked to trust that the money is spent wisely and in our common interest.

There is no doubt that most public servants try to be good stewards of our money. But the amounts available and the fact that taxpayers are distracted with making a living present a mighty temptation. Funds can potentially be spent in ways taxpayers would not approve with little chance that questionable spending will be discovered.

Surely, had Goodyear’s city fathers known that taxpayers would be looking over their shoulders, they would have been more circumspect in some of their spending. In an investigative news report, they were caught wining and dining wealthy pro sports interests with $100 bottles of wine. Taxpayers footed that bill and another for a visit to a nail salon.

From Green Eyeshade A Townhall.com blog

To Congressman John Campbell's Green Eyeshade Blog

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Still More Money to be Saved

Posted by: John Campbell at 3:05 PM

Federal Spending

There is finally a deal. The Democrats agreed to only spend the total budget amount that the president had asked for. That saves you nearly $150 billion over the next 5 years (because the base for future increases is lower) which is enough to avoid the increases in the alternative minimum tax that many want to see. I feel particularly happy about this because this all really started with the letter I circulated last spring on which 147 members of Congress agreed to uphold the president's veto of any spending bill over his requested amount. Bills went to the president, he vetoed them and the vetoes were upheld which is why majority Democrats had to make a deal. That all worked out quite well.

Federal Spending

But I still voted against the spending bill.

* First of all, I actually thought the president's spending number was too high also. We cannot continue to increase spending by, or in excess of, the growth in the economy or we will never get to a balanced budget. * Secondly, the deal included $11 billion in one-time new spending. * Third, it has at least 8000 earmarks in it for nearly $20 billion. Much of this is complete waste. That's actually more than last year in spite of the Democrat leadership's pledges to reform this process. It shows that the bipartisan earmark culture on Capitol Hill is alive and well. * Fourth, the bill was 3500 pages long and weighs nearly 35 pounds. We got it at midnight on Sunday night and the first votes in rules committee happened about 14 hours later. Nobody, except the people who wrote it, really knows what is in it. I'm sure there's a lot of bad stuff. It should not happen like this. * Fifth, there is a bunch of bad stuff I know is in there. Congressman Jefferson (D-LA), who is under indictment for taking bribes (allegedly money hidden in his freezer) for earmarks, received an earmark which is one of many hundreds thrown in the bill without any discussion or hearing. There is $10 million in there to pay for the legal defense of illegal aliens who are resisting deportation. And, the bill provides some funds for the border fence but reduces it from an ineffective one layer fence instead of two and does not provide the means to patrol it.

We saved some money. But there's a lot more left to be saved.

The average yearly cost of farm subsidies over the last 30 years has been about $20 billion, a total of about $600 billion.

Disgraceful. Americans should demand an end to farm, sugar, dairy and other sham subsidies.

An increasing number of these payments have gone to Fortune 500 companies and the wealthy including members of Congress.

Most of the money goes to large corporate farmers. Ten percent of the beneficiaries get over 70 percent of the payments.

But just look at the number of beneficiaries who live - of all places - in New York City. They’re often people who've bought or inherited land that qualifies for subsidies, though they live in high-rent city homes.

New York billionaire Edgar Bronfman Sr. is among those who receive farm subsidies. Some members of Congress who vote on farm subsidies and earn $165,200 government salaries can get payments.

Several congressmen or close family members of theirs have gotten a total over $6.2 million dollars over 10 years.

One of them is Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry.

Berry has collected farm subsidies for years.

Records seem to indicate that Berry and his family have received almost $2.4 million in federal payments from 1999 to 2005

Operation Airdrop

Andrew Roth

From Rep. John Campbell:

I have consistently made the argument that earmarks exist to serve political ends. Well, here is the latest example.

Each of the conference reports for the Defense, Labor/HHS, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs spending bills have earmarks “airdropped” into them.

“Airdropping” is a way of adding earmarks to a bill during the conference report process at the last possible minute, effectively shielding the earmarks from reproach due to the lack of time for review before a vote on the floor.

Many times, these reports are hundreds of pages in length and Members simply cannot thoroughly examine every page in less than 24 hours.

This is a deliberate tactic to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money with complete anonymity and zero accountability. I have vocally opposed this practice as have many of my colleagues on both the House and Senate side.

However, despite the outcry from House Members and Senators, 54 earmarks worth $85 million have been added to conference reports for the three spending bills I listed above.

Out of those 54 earmarks, 12 were sponsored by Freshman House Members or Senators in their first terms and 9 were requested and signed off by Senators up for re-election this year.

Coincidence or not?

To learn more visit the Club For Growth Club For Growth

###

A totally realistic plan to control federal spending has been put forth by the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

The main idea is to reduce baseline spending for the years 2007 through 2011 by a very realistic 2.8%.