kefroeschner 2 years, 3 months ago

I totally agree.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

mcg2010 2 years, 3 months ago

I applaud this article, nay, I give it a standing ovation. I have been contemplating this concept for weeks now. How do we expect to cut our way out of a deficit.

If your household budget is tight, you do TWO things. You first find ways cut out the little things you can do with out. THEN you look for ways to generate more income. It might be as simple as a yard sale, or something as drastic as taking on a new job.

It's not a hard concept. If you want to spend more, then you need to make more. But some where along the line taxes stopped being a resource and became a curse.

I like libraries, police officers, educators. Mr. Smith, I stand with you and proudly say, "Tax me."

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

moonchild7 2 years, 3 months ago

Thank you Mr. Smith for saying what has needed to be said for quite awhile now. You put it all in the "Right" perspective with the "Right" logic. Now let's see what the stingy, malcontents have to say about your letter.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

Ross 2 years, 3 months ago

This article made me smile, as 2012 may just bring another so called mandate where people see just how full of hot air and pompous the republicans are and "vote em back out".

I just hope Mr. Smith has his helmet and shoulder pads on as the far right will be here soon with their onslaught of "BLAH BLAH BLAH" :)

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

blake 2 years, 3 months ago

"Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States U.S. Department of the Treasury Credit Accounting Branch 3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D Hyattsville, MD 20782 " http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Mr Smith, Ross, Moonchild, your contributions will be appreciated.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

Ross 2 years, 3 months ago

wow - am I slowly transforming you into a liberal or have you been smoking that "weed" again James?

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

moonchild7 2 years, 3 months ago

I contribute almost everyday with gasoline taxes and when I go out of state, which is about once or twice a month, I contribute even more. No thanks on any "Gift Giving" to the Government since I really don't earn that kind of money. Where's all those old Bizillionaires Social Security Checks? Do you think they give them back to the Gov.?

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

nothingspecial 2 years, 3 months ago

Yes, Mr. Smith, pay all you want.

I'm a little more skeptical of your claims, a little inclined in fact to believe they might either be propaganda or Mr. Smith believing what he hears or both.

For example:

"After all the cuts, Education Department funding for 2012 remains 35 percent higher than in the last pre-emergency pre-Obama year, 2008."

"Consider even the biggest "painful cut" headline of all, the 50 percent cut in fuel subsidies for the poor. Barbaric, is it not? Except for the fact that the subsidies had been doubled from 2008 levels. The draconian cut is nothing but a return to normal pre-recession levels."

Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021705270.html

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

DaveyNC 2 years, 3 months ago

Mr. Smith, congratulations on a well-written, powerful statement. But, I'm with blake on this one. Nothing is stopping you from paying more, via tax or not.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

irkim13 2 years, 3 months ago

I have asked several times on various blogs if liberals wanting increased taxes ever paid more than required, no one has answered. Kudos to Mr Smith for seemingly being willing to do just that.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

bigD 2 years, 3 months ago

When Mr Smith makes a voluntary contribution and shows me the canceled check then I will make a matching contribution. Until I see the canceled check he is all talk.

What do you say Mr Smith will you lead by example or will you cry wolf?

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

moonchild7 2 years, 3 months ago

Ronald Reagan lowered taxes from 70% to 50% to 28%. Clinton raised them to 39%. Bush lowered them to about 20%. That's unfair and they need to be raised back to the Clinton levels at least. Mr. Smith just wants the rates to be fair and for those who earn a whole lot more than most to pay a bit more. He's willing to do so. My Patriotism? I pay my taxes and I don't cheat on them. I own two homes so I have to pay two separate property taxes. I vote in almost every election. I was born in our Nations Capital: Washington, DC. I've visited The National Archives and seen our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. I visited Philadelphia to see the Liberty Bell and Constitution Hall. I've toured the White House, Capitol, Library of Congress, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery(I have two great grandfathers buried there), Ford's Theater and The Peterson House(where Lincoln died), Mt. Vernon, Monticello, Harper's Ferry, Antietam, Gettysburg, Williamsburg, Jamestown, The Lost Colony(play), Plymouth Rock, Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, and Ft. McHenry, I'm a real AMERICAN Mongrel with Cajun, Creole, Choctaw Apache and English/Irish bloodlines. I LOVE this country more than you understand. Those English relatives on my mothers side are from the James Monroe(as in FOUNDING FATHER)family in Colonial beach VA. My grandmother even GAVE the James Monroe Museum In VA a few pieces of furniture and a family bible that she had to them...for FREE! I never took my son to DISNEYWORLD when he was growing up because I felt it more important for him to know our country's HISTORY. So many(not all)of those places I named were seen with him when he was growing up. I'm sure that's not enough for most of you...too bad because not enough people take the time to really learn our history but I have. This country is great even though it still needs a bit fixing up.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

huntrJ 2 years, 3 months ago

@MC7 I will not debate your Patriotism. I'm sure you do love this country, however I cannot differ with you more on what is a person's "fair share". To me a person who has created billions of their own wealth doesn't deserve to have it taken for the sake of "Patriotism". Why should they? They went out, took a risk (if their a billionaire, quite a few risks) and made tons of money, I'm more than happy for them and hope that they have a good time spending it.

Why should they sacrifice more? Why should I sacrifice more? I have done nothing to harm any human in acquiring my money so why should I owe more to the government? I am not helped by the numerous Social Services, so why should I have to pay them? It's absolutely ridiculous!

I'm glad you've never cheated on your taxes and I don't intend to on my, however why should the tax system be so complicated? Why not just have a straight percentage, like 15%, for EVERYONE? Or better yet, just put sales tax on everything and lets be done with the entire Tax code? And when it comes to what we can cut, what about getting rid of some of the Federal Agencies that the States could actually do on their own? Let's get rid of the Dept of Agric, Dept of Education, IRS, Dept of Energy, and the Federal Reserve just to start. I have a feeling that those cuts will leave quite a bit left in our budget.

Perhaps thats a bit of a rant but I stand by it. If you feel that the government should tax you more, take the initiative and donate yourself, please don't try to lump all of us into your want to give.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

moonchild7 2 years, 3 months ago

Well James, I guess you have neither an attorney or accountant to lower your taxes? If your income is that high though surely you have those guys lower your "TAX BURDEN" to 15-20% like most other wealthy people. EXXON MOBILE paid 0% in Federal taxes in 2009. Our tax system is corrupt. We shouldn't tax people to death but this notion of "Fairness" is also out of whack. Life is not fair and the wealthy can and should pay more simply from their status alone. The government DOES NOT have the right to take an exorbident amount but just remember the tax rates in the 1950's thru the 70's were 90% during Eseinhower and lowered by JFK to 70% in the 60's.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

moonchild7 2 years, 3 months ago

The "War on Poverty" has NEVER been won because the true agent of Victory in that war is America's Businesses and they have fought to keep it going on. They have fought and still fight against minimum wages, benefits, and better working conditions, to the point now of sending a lot of jobs overseas and keeping their profits "close at hand". Those people who paid NO TAXES did pay taxes but must have earned SO LITTLE in income that the Gov. gave them a refund to help them survive. Yes, BIG Business has a lot of the answers to America's problems but they have failed and continue to fail. As in the past(the Depression)the Government has had to step in to rectify these discrepancies and keep people afloat. Where's GM's, Bank of America's, JP Morgan's, or Apple's local FOOD STAMP or HOUSING office's guys? For my modest income I pay plenty of taxes...in fact apparently I pay more than EXXON MOBILE!

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

Darkwing 2 years, 3 months ago

Since the other thread has been shut down, I’ll reply to a few items from there that also apply here: Everyone has to sacrifice. Public employees, who make considerably more than private-sector ones, should never have been allowed union representation, and should now lose that. Private-sector employees unions should only be prohibited from lobbying outside their narrow field, because it’s not fair representation of their membership unless the great majority of members have specifically voted in favor of that position. That, and they need to understand that this is not a good time to demand much in way of benefit or pay increases. Moonchild, I understand quite clearly that welfare now does little to protect against fraud, and that it has become a distraction from larger issues. I proposed a simple enough solution to implement that will not cost much, and will encourage the lazy, fraudulent claimants off the rolls, while not harming those who really do need it. It can easily be put on their resumes, and need not even include the mention of government sponsorship. I don’t care that Clinton “reformed” it in the 90’s. It’s still a festering issue. My proposal would take it off the table, and let budget cutting debates proceed in more productive directions. I don’t look to balance the budget this way, I only say we can help these people without huge increases and then move on to bigger fish. It seems that YOU don’t understand that this is a capitalist country, not a socialist one. We absolutely better not take over the banks; Uncle Sam wouldn’t know how to run it. As CRA showed (it started the snowball that killed the economy, after all), the government would run our banks and our whole economy into the ground. We could certainly stand to rein them in , but not take them over. Nationalization is almost always a bad idea.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

Darkwing 2 years, 3 months ago

Let’s see. Next up, health care. I utterly oppose not-for-profit health care. I already have it, and it’s a nightmare. Several years ago, it was published that not one single doctor in the service was even qualified to be a Physician’s Assistant in the real world. I have had laparoscopic surgery, and had a hand scalpel and gauze strips left inside. I went in for athlete’s foot, and walked out with a diagnosis of hernia. An EEG gave a result of “heart murmur”. My daughter was run over and her legs broken in three places at the age of three. The military doctors x-rayed her neck, bandaged a lesion on her leg, and tried to send her home. After they were prodded into x-rays, they found one break, and assumed they were done. More prodding forced them to look again, and find the other two breaks. After all this, they still insisted on sending her home instead of keeping her for observation, as any legitimate hospital would have done. And this is the system you want for everyone? No thanks! Now a government health care give away I COULD support would be full scholarships for med students with certain test scores to start, as long as they maintain their grades. Partial scholarships for those with lesser scores, and if they get their grades high enough, upgrade it to a full ride. Maybe even forgiveness of student loans incurred beforehand. All they have to do is agree to work for government hospitals for a reasonable period before going exclusively into private practice. That period should be based on how much of their education we paid for. Yes, it’ll cost, but it won’t cost nearly what a single-payer system would, and wouldn’t encourage the dumbing-down of medicine.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

Darkwing 2 years, 3 months ago

Prison s? I agree that we criminalize a lot of things we shouldn’t, and use jail to punish more than we should. I’d bring back shaming. Put petty vandals in an orange jumpsuit in front of the courthouse for a few days, with a sign “I’m John smith, and I have no respect for private property”. Stop arresting people for possession of small amounts of drugs. Legalize prostitution on the Nevada model, regulate and tax it. But also make inmates live like we do on ships. Tell liberal judges that if sailors and marines can live in 6’X2’X2’ racks 3-4 high, so 6-8 servicemen live in a 6X6X6 cubicle, so can inmates. Let them EARN tv privileges, library privileges, and workout privileges. Put them back on the chain gangs and get some serious labor out of them. Make prisons unpleasant, but not cruelly so, and they’ll be a better deterrent. We may need to raise taxes, but I prefer to cut first. The problem is, we need to take a scalpel through the budget, line by line, not a budgetary axe. Obama claims to go the scalpel route, but what he ended up giving us looked more like he used tweezers. The budget has massive, systemic cancer, not a gangrenous leg.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

MisterG 2 years, 3 months ago

"Public employees, who make considerably more than private-sector ones"

Nope. Take Wisconsin for example, where they earn 4.8% less than private sector employees on average. The further cuts proposed there would amount to a pay cut of 10% for most of them.

"However, we do not believe in the government taking our money through taxes and recklessly spending it on the most inefficient programs ever conceived. Liberals are always generous with other people's money."

Last time I checked it wasn't "liberals" who have jacked defense spending through the roof over the last 30 years to help out their lobbyist pals in the defense industry, nor was it "liberals" who decided to fight two unwinnable wars that cost trillions of dollars a year.

Keep on believing it when wealthy white men tell you "giving more money to wealthy white men like myself is good for everyone! Trust us!"

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

JER 2 years, 3 months ago

So if Bin Laden was a flea riding a camel, we would have had him by now. Thank you Ronnie. Trouble is, we spend a gazillion dollars on exotic weapons systems and even for jet engines nobody wants, and the people we are trying to defeat simply buy airplane tickets. Yes, we need to cut spending and we could go a long way towards a balanced budget just by doing some slashing in defense spending. And James, you are hilarious with YOUR constant use of racism to counter every comment made that does not fit your view of the world. Take a trip to to Aspen or Palm Beach or the Hamptons (or Pinehurst) and tell me who you see. These are the folks that are the current or former captains of industry. I'll make the "score keeping" easy for you: Just print out this form and make a check mark next to the groups you come across. 1) Caucasians 2) Hispanic 3) Oriental 4) Black 5) None of the above.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

Darkwing 2 years, 3 months ago

Nice try, Mister G. Those public sector union members make more than private sector ones, and would lose less than them as well by everyone's reckoning, except the unions themselves, who have a vested interest.

And don't blame the deficit on just the DOD.

Jer, don't buy that rhetoric. We can't "slash" defense spending without hurting readiness. Yes, there's a lot of waste, but it's not in nice, easy to find chunks you can simply axe. You gotta look line by line. Even then, there's obfuscation, not necessarily intentional. For example, a unit's supply budget doesn't show what they will get in the future with the money they're getting now, because it's based on previous year's spending. So what often happens is that needed equipment doesn't get bought in order to hold the money in case of emergency, and then at the end of the quarter, and especially the end of the fiscal year, there's an orgy of wasteful spending on tvs, desks, chairs, and other items in order to keep the money. The items replaced are supposed to go to DRMO for re-use or sale to the public, but that's too much trouble to bother with, so those items, often still perfectly usable, just somewhat worn, go into the water or the trash.

Even when it's spent on useful items, paint often wins out over tools. We use the cheapest, most useless paint because we want to keep the little folks busy. We paint and repaint much more frequently than is justifiable, and can drop hundreds of thousands of dollars per ship on paint. Cutting the paint allotment of each ship and requiring them to use the highest quality paint in order to increase the interval between necessary paintings would save money, but also mean sailors have less busywork. That won't pop out of budget analyses, though, so it won't happen.

We also buy food we shouldn't: it's marked GRADE Z MEAT / NOT FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION / FOR INSTITUTIONAL USE ONLY, NOT FOR USE IN SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS OR PRISONS / and NOT FIT FOR ANIMAL CONSUMPTION. Much of it is also expired. I've had radiated milk with 10 different expiration dates marked out which clotted up in my coffee, which indicates that it's bad. I was told "it's fine, just stir it up". Meantime, we pay farmers not to grow food as price supports.

Check out glenbeck.com and see if he still has that budget cut calculator up, and see just how much you can or can't save by various proposals before congress.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

moonchild7 2 years, 3 months ago

You forget Southeastern CT where a huge amount of the top 1%er's live. They have to BUS in from Bridgeport, The Bronx and Queens, people to do all the "little service jobs." Every day! And then they go back home(can't afford to live there on those income's). Their "diversity" ratings are about 28% out of 100%. Got that? The AVERAGE price of a home? $1.2 million!!!!!! Not enough people ever see how they live in these INSULATED worlds. I only know because I have family there but they've been there for awhile and bought house's back in the 60's when they were cheap. Oh, they also BUS in the "minorites" to diversify their very white schools from the city of Bridgeport. THEY DO NOT PAY ENOUGH TAXES!

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

nothingspecial 2 years, 3 months ago

Mister G: I applaud you for actually throwing out some data but its skewed data. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260337/are-wisconsin-public-employees-underpaid-jim-manzi

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

JER 2 years, 3 months ago

Darkwing and the mauiman both commented on my post. Darkwing took a reasoned and thoughtfull approach in his response. mauiman took the standard knee-jerk, right wing approach. There is waste and excess in the military budgets. Lets take the time and make the effort to get rid of that excess and waste. One way of reducing that budget would involve removing the USA from the role of worldwide police force and insisting that it be handled by all nations on a localized basis. In otherwords, when trouble breaks out in North America, Canada, USA and Mexico handle it. When unrest in Europe needs attention, the Europeans take care of it, etc. Or we could insist that the UN do what it was designed to do. My favorite idea plays right to the heart of the conservative right: Turn national defense over to private industry. Remember how many times we are told that the private sector can do it better, faster and cheaper than the government. It would be a fairly easy transition, given how many "contractors" are currently involved now. Lets put capitalism to work on this. The only downside I see is that illegals will flow over the borders to take the jobs away from Americans unwilling to work in the war business at the wages offered by the private industries and eventually, the entire enterprise will be driven off shore so that costs can be contained and ROI is maintained for investors.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

Darkwing 2 years, 3 months ago

Jer, someone has to do a lot of world police stuff, and nobody but China is even capable of it. When N. Korea fired a missile over Japan and declared a 200 mile economic easement zone that no-one else was allowed in, my ship sailed to 13 miles offshore (it's called 'freedom of navigation operations'. Had Japan done that, there would have been fighting. Despite their onetime victory with the Pueblo, N. Korea was not ready to take such a gamble with us. They quietly stopped trying to enforce that zone.

When neighbors try it, tempers flare. When the big boy on the block does it, and has a big enough stick (aka "4 acres of sovereign US soil" afloat), they accept it and the situation defuses. This happens all the time, but it's not sexy and doesn't get reported. If we didn't do it, there'd be a lot more flashpoints as one third-world nation claimed excess territory illegally and tried to capture other nations' ships as punishment for violating their 'territory' and charging punitive tolls, leading to more little brushfire wars. Now, paying to support flying musicians from port to port to perform for military functions is an expense I'd gladly cut. I'd consider reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile if you can convince me we haven't already pared it too far.

I won't agrre on privatizing defense - as mentioned elsewhere, that's a core responsibility of the government. Now, public-private partnerships covering some of the ancillary responsibilities could be looked at.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

huntrJ 2 years, 3 months ago

@ MC7

First off, what is wrong with busing those who aren't wealthy to their jobs? Atleast they have jobs in this economy! Would you rather them be stuck in the bronx, flushings, or queens without a job? Reason would lead one to the conclusion that there is atleast the belief of the wealthy is that they can bus their employees but apparently that is not good enough for you.

Next, what is wrong with houses being a million dollars? Is there something wrong with a nice house being expensive? Is it a moral crime to even think of selling a house over so much money? Please, that ideology is completely illogical and lacks reasoning. I think it becomes more and more apparent that you have a deep rooted jealously of those who are wealthy, or maybe a hatred, I don't which. However, anyone who has read your posts as I have can easily see you have an issue with those who have a lot of money. May I suggest a psychiatrist?

And lastly, tell me what is wrong with a person who wishes to surround themselves with their money? Haven't they earned it? What on God's earth is wrong with them using it as they wish?? And what is your issue with them trying to diversify their schools? Do you have an issue with minorities being allowed in these "white schools" as you put it? Please, quit the contradictions and figure an ideology that works in the real world. First on your list would be the figuring why you hate the rich.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

JER 2 years, 3 months ago

Darkwing, thanks for your reasoned reply. My concern in having the US in the role of world policeman is our ability to afford that role. While I'm sure someone would make the argument that everything that happens in the world today is a threat to our national security, in truth, the vast majority of these flareups pose no direct danger to the well being of the folks in our country. Now they might well pose an economic threat to us, but I don't believe using our military to insure profitable commerce is what the founders had in mind. In addition to the suggestions you had for cost cutting, perhaps we could "hire out" our protective services to those countries that are afraid to protect themselves from their neighbors. Based on your assesment, I would think the military could become a profit center rather than a expense.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

Darkwing 2 years, 2 months ago

Actualy, commerce is the main reason we have a standing navy. The founding fathers didn't want a standing military, because they thought that it would invite their successors to become conquerors. This is why they wanted a strong militia - it'd be a defense force, but difficult to turn to offense. But the piracy in Tripoli was harming our merchants, so we rebuilt our navy expressly so we could protect commerce -it was a core mission then, and should be now. Not protecting business' profit margins from all possible risk, just keeping the sea lanes open to all and removing piracy, international power/territory grabs, and other such threats from commerce. Being the world maritime police is an outgrowth of that. Yes, it can go wrong - the Opium Wars and Boxer rebellion, and the taking of Hong Kong and Macau are shining examples of imperialism growing out of commerce protection. Doing so on land can be even trickier, and more likely to suck us into political pitfalls, so must be approached more carefully. Example: Guatemala in the 50s nationalizing Dole's plantations.

I really don't care for the idea of hiring out our troops as mercenaries. How would we ensure that we don't hire out to another Shah and besmirch our nation's honor? Now, considering our actions in Iraq as 'direct foreign aid loans' and expecting a monetary reimbursement on a reasonable timetable could be considered. So if our leadership decides that sending in the troops is the right course, then they can also decide whether or not to bill the recipient of our assistance. That's the difference between charging rescuees for the search and allowing air rescue services to rent out their aircraft when not looking for survivors, and it's a question for congress to consider.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal