No Mo Spending!

Holy crap. Someone in Washington (well, more than one someone) has actually come up with a list of proposed cuts to cut Federal spending. It actually happened. I'm stunned. Now, there's no guarantee that any of these things are going to actually get cut. But as I read the list, I was wondering how in the world we ended up spending a freaking DIME on some of these things! Seriously. Did you know that annually, the Federal government shells out $1 million in (wait for it) mohair subsidies?! Subsidies for the hair of a mo! I've never even seen a mo! How much hair do they have? How much do they need? Why do the mos and their hair require my money?! Ah, so many questions, so few answers. Let's look at some other proposed cuts that I can't believe we're already spending money on. (For the record, while I am a proponent of almost any sort of cut in spending, I am against any cuts to any sort of non-wasteful, effective spending on our military and for our veterans. Listen, you take a job knowing that you could end up stationed in one of the crazy, crazy Sand Lands for a few years, the least I can do is help you out a little bit when you get back.)

Get this: Did you know that there is a "death gratuity" for members of Congress? There is. Do you know what that means? I didn't, but when I looked it up, I was appalled. If you're a member of Congress and you die, your family gets a payment (that is paid for by the taxpayers) that is equal to one year's salary. According to something called The Daily Caller, when crooked ol' John Murtha croaked it "his family got a $174,000 payment". When the overly ancient Sen. Robert Byrd died, "...his family received $193,400." When Sen. Ted Kennedy died, "...taxpayers footed the bill for $174,000 in payments to his family." Do you think that ol' Ted Kennedy's family needed almost $200k? I can't possibly imagine that they did. Apparently, this thing "...was at one time meant to act as a form of life insurance for the families of Members who met an untimely demise". But now that almost every single Senator is a millionaire, I'm hardly thinking that this is necessary. (By the way, when my dad died, do you know how much the Social Security payout was to my mom? $252. Not $252 thousand. $252. I was so insulted I almost told them to keep it. Oh, and this was in 2005, not the fifties or anything. And I know that it's sort of apples and oranges, but they're both fruits, so there's some parallel here. Man, I like fruit.)

What else? Oh, they want to eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act (which has been screwing taxpayers since 1931) to save more than $1 billion annually. This Act basically made it so that government contracts must pay a prevailing wage. According to Wikipedia (take it for what it's worth), "All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects." So, there's no getting anything done cheaper if you can. Nope. No sense in even bidding low. Nope. That it costs over a billion dollars a year makes me insane. That it has been in effect since 1931 (even though it has been suspended from time to time), makes me even crazier. Wouldn't you think that someone would realize that if it is being suspended (for reasons such as faster recovery from hurricanes) on occasion and things are just fine without it, shouldn't it pretty much be deemed unnecessary? Oh, wait. It's a government program. Never mind.

Did you know that we provide economic assistance to Egypt? We do. Do you know how much assistance we provide Egypt? $250 million per year. Do you know WHY we assist Egypt? Neither do I. Their economy ranks 27th in the world. That's not too shabby. Their unemployment rate in 2009 was 9.37%. Um, that's kind of about the same as the unemployment here in the US. You don't think that we could have used that $250 million to economically assist our own citizens? Unbelievable. By the way, we're also giving $17 million dollars each year to Ireland. No answer for that one, either.

And this little recap wouldn't be complete if I didn't mention that we spent $76 million annually on something called the Appalachian Regional Commission. According to their website, "The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency that represents a partnership of federal, state, and local government." Why just in the Appalachian region? Let's see...well, it was established in 1965 by an act of Congress. OK. I'm noticing that it seems to encompass all of West Virginia, so I'm going to have to assume that a Senator from West Virginia was heavily involved in this getting started. Hmm...I'm also reading that it has something to do with the War on Poverty in the mountains. OK, that's it. What a bunch of crap. $76 million? Really? For 40 years? Unbelievable.

Below is the entire list of cuts that are proposed by my new heroes (well, for today), the Republican Study Committee (courtesy of The Huffington Post). Their study claims that "The plan would reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion over a decade". So when you hear some softhead say something to the effect of "it's just a drop in the bucket", please remind their dense, non-functioning selves that if you don't start putting drops of water IN the bucket, you're never going to fill up the bucket! You have to start somewhere! What part of that don't people understand?! Stop spending my money on the hair of the mo!

➢ Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

➢ Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
➢ International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
➢ Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
➢ Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
➢ Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
➢ U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
➢ Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
➢ Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
➢ John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
➢ Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
➢ Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
➢ Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

➢ Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
➢ Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
➢ Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
➢ Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
➢ New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
➢ Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
➢ Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
➢ Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
➢ Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
➢ Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
➢ FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
➢ Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
➢ U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
➢ General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

➢ Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
➢ No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
➢ End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
➢ Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
➢ IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
➢ Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
➢ Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
➢ Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
➢ USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
➢ Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

Stop Spending My Money On Stupid Crap

When people get all angry and uppity when talk of raising taxes comes around, it's not like there isn't a reason. There are plenty of reasons why so many people are sick of a buttload of wasteful spending and then having politicians tell us that we need higher taxes because there isn't enough revenue. Can't those morons figure this stuff out before they waste a gazillion of our tax dollars? The answer is no and I'm here to give you another example of an insane amount of money that was wasted on a bunch of crap. And by the way, it was pretty much crap from the get-go.

Have you heard of the "virtual fence"? In essence, it was supposed to be a technology based approach that would help secure our borders. No one ever really explained how it would work exactly and when they did try to explain how it would (hypothetically) work, they were still never sure if it would actually work. Even the freaking government knew how far-fetched it was. But do you think that stopped them from going full speed ahead with their project and your money? Of course not.

For the last five years, this unicorn project has been underway. Now, I don't know everything that they have been doing for the last five years, but I do know that they managed to spend ONE BILLION dollars while they were doing it. And if you're thinking that one billion dollars seems like a lot of money, you're damned straight that it is. It's going to seem like an awful lot after I tell you that after five years, this project has finally been deemed un-doable and has been canceled. Finally. One billion dollars later and someone finally pulled their head out of their arse. Great. It would have been a little bit nicer if someone could have pulled their head out of their arse before the one billion dollars had been spent. Perhaps, just maybe, someone could have paid attention to any one of a number of scathing reports that had been put together by the Government Accountability Office and then we wouldn't be in this position. But no. It took a billion dollars to induce said head pulling. Idiots.

And if you're wondering if we got anything at all for that one billion dollars, the answer is yes. Granted, it's not much, but it's something. Is it a billion dollars worth of something? Hell no. According to the New York Times, "In a pilot program in Arizona, it cost about $1 billion to build the system across 53 miles of the state’s border." A billion dollars? For fifty three miles of border? Yes. And mind you that in the "new approach" to border security, "...using mobile surveillance systems and unmanned drones already in the Border Patrol’s arsenal, would cost less than $750 million to cover the remaining 323 miles of Arizona’s border." Uh-huh. I see. Sooooo...if I do the math here, let's see...carry the two...divide into the...bring down the zero...all right then! ONE mile of "border security" cost approximately $18,867,925. That comes out to approximately $3,573 per foot. If you weren't angry before, you should be now.

While I enjoy the thought of unmanned drones whizzing along the border, I have a question. And I'm guessing that I must be missing something because I never even hear this brought up during discussions of border security. What in the world would be wrong with a big ass G-D fence? Have it go about ten stories below ground and about five stories above ground. Make it ten feet thick. Put some barbed wire at the top. Voila! What's wrong with that? I don't understand why it has to be all high-tech. Sure, high-tech is cool as can be, but all I want is for people to be kept out. I don't care if we don't use laser beams or teleporters to keep them out, just keep them out. And stop spending my money on stupid crap that isn't going to work! Spend my money to build a freaking fence and be done with it! At the very least, explain to me why a fence like I've described wouldn't work. But whatever you do, stop spending my money on stupid crap!

Your Tax Dollars Hard At Waste

Today I learned about ExpectMore.gov. (It's actually called www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore, but ExpectMore.gov will get you there.) It is a website, the purpose of such is apparently to make me very angry. It definitely sucked out most of my WTL (Will To Live) and kind of filled me with an HFOH (Heart Full Of Hate). Let's see if it makes you angry as well!

The purpose of the site (which is run by the Federal government) is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of all Federal programs and then rate whether the program is Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, Ineffective or Results Not Demonstrated. According to the page which explains what each rating actually means, Results Not Demonstrated means "...that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing." In other words, they're just screwing around. An Ineffective rating means that "Programs receiving this rating are not using your tax dollars effectively. Ineffective programs have been unable to achieve results due to a lack of clarity regarding the program's purpose or goals, poor management, or some other significant weakness." Well, that doesn't sound good. I guess the rating "Piece of S**t" didn't sound very official and that's why they went with Ineffective.

They have so far evaluated about 98% of the Federal programs and that amounts to 1,015 of them. Do you want to know how many are below Adequate? (And let me just tell you that the definition of Adequate isn't anything to throw a party over. It is indicative of a "...program that needs to set more ambitious goals, achieve better results, improve accountability or strengthen its management practices." Seriously, do you feel good about that? I don't.) Ready? 199 out of 1,015 are a complete waste of money. 19.6%. And that's not even ALL of the programs yet! More to come! Stay stuned!

Twenty percent of the governments programs have been deemed by the government to be doing nothing other than pissing away your money! That's astounding. Take a look at your next pay stub. Look at what you paid in Federal taxes. Take twenty percent of that and realize that, not only did you work to earn it and you can't have it, it isn't doing a damn thing and is being wasted. And when you hear what some of these programs are, you're going to be wondering why they were ever given money in the first place.

There's the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program. It's goal is "To improve the likelihood that persons eligible for the Food Stamp Program (FSP) will make healthy food choices within a limited budget and choose physically active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) and My Pyramid". Uh-huh. Like that's going to happen. Of course, they really have no way that they're doing this. And that's why their budget has gone from $600,000 in 1992 to (brace yourself) $147 million in 1992 and THAT was eight years ago! So in ten years, their budget grew to 245 times what it started out at! And if I'm reading the chart correctly (it's a little hard to follow and I know that's completely shocking to you) their funding for 2008 was $312 million. That means that it's doubled and then some in two years. And it's not doing anything! I wish I could have a budget for some worthless piece of crap double in the span of only two years. Good Lord. Got your axe handles at the ready? Torches? Pitchforks? I'm just getting started.

There's the National Writing Project which is "...to promote K-16 teacher training and professional development in the area of writing. The Project consists of one national office and a network of local sites through which teachers have access to training, professional development, and current research about the teaching of writing." HOW MANY teachers does that scope actually make up? Is it enough to make it worthy of $22 million in funding in 2008? Since when do our grades go from kindergarten to Grade Sixteen?! Isn't that a senior in college? Shouldn't they know how to write by then? Why do they still need to be taught how to write?

There is the Black Lung Clinics Program (BLCP) which received $6 million in 2008 and is "...to establish and operate clinics that identify, diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate active and retired coal miners with occupational exposure to airborne particles resulting in respiratory and pulmonary ailments." I'm sure that you'll be comforted and satisfied to learn that "Since implementation of the Black Lung Clinics Program in 1979, only one independent assessment of the program has been conducted. This assessment did not provide an evaluation of the program's effectiveness and was limited in the range of issues addressed." Oh, good. So, in thirty-one years there has been ONE assessment. Sure. That seems easily explainable. Not by me, of course.

Let's not forget the Workforce Investment Act - Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers which got $83 million in 2008 for the purpose of providing "...competitive grants to fund training, employment, and other services to help economically disadvantaged farmworkers and their families. Through these services, the program seeks to help them achieve economic self-sufficiency by strengthening their ability to gain stable employment." What the what?! You'll also want to know that "Each year, more than 60 percent of the program's approximately 30,000 participants receive only supportive services, like emergency cash assistance." Wait a minute.

30,000 participants and they get $83 million dollars?! For the guys that pick the strawberries that are frequently permanently visiting here from foreign lands?! Emergency cash assistance?! I know some folks who could use some emergency cash assistance. Oh, but they're citizens and they don't pick strawberries. Why is this sounding more and more backwards the more I go on. (And by the way, do you want to or should I tell the Federal government that it's not "farmworkers", it's "farm workers"? Two words. We're doomed.)

And these few that I have listed were merely some of the Ineffective programs. There are plenty of programs with ridiculous sounding names that were rated Results Not Demonstrated. Programs like the $49 million Mentoring Program (I swear to you that's what it's called), the $120 million Teaching American History program, the $20 million Packers and Stockyards program and the $4.783 billion Universal Service Fund E-Rate program which is supposed to "...help ensure that the educational benefits of telecommunications services are provided to schools and libraries. The program provides discounts on these services in varying amounts based on demonstrated economic need." (What, exactly, do they mean by "telecommunications"? A PHONE?!)

Now, maybe some of those or the other 169 programs whose results cannot be demonstrated are actually doing some good. Since they results can't be demonstrated, I'm sure that some jackass congressperson will make that argument. Hard to imagine that if they were actually doing some good that they wouldn't be able to prove it, though. Hard to imagine. It's also hard to imagine that 20% of these Federal programs don't do squat. And they wonder why we're having budgetary issues. They wonder why the consumer isn't spending more. It's because the country is being run by a bunch of folks who keep spending our money on crap like this. That's why.