Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), released its Monthly Budget Review, and not to my surprise it stated “The federal government incurred a deficit of $268 billion for the first nine months of fiscal year 2008, CBO estimates, $148 billion more than the shortfall recorded during the same period in 2007.”

CBO also estimates that about $79 billion of that change is a direct result of the Economic Stimulus Act that passed the House at the beginning of this year.

We are now seeing the direct effect from reckless spending without reductions elsewhere.  I have said it before and I will say it now, both Republicans and Democrats need to understand that if we continue on our current course we are on a collision course for the highest debt in American history.

This past week in Congress, we considered a bill that that would try to sue our way to lower gas prices as well as another bill to create subsidies for only federal employees to take public transportation to work.

All I can say is are you kidding me? 

The cartoon below has a greater meaning after this week.

An AP article that was published yesterday, says a lot about the pervasive spending and earmarking culture that exists here in Washington D.C.

Frank Cushing, former Staff Director for the House Committee on Appropriations under Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-CA), and now a lobbyist for the National Group stated in the article,

"I know a bunch of members that if you go in to see them, somewhere in the conversation they somehow say, 'Well, we were looking through our list of campaign contributors and didn't happen to see you there…is there a quid pro quo? No, not directly, but you'd have to be pretty dense not to figure it out."

Another lobbyist who declined to be identified said:

"You can ask any lobbyist in town. You bring a new client in to see a member and everything is nice-nice and you have a good meeting and everybody's exchanging business cards, within 48 hours, the clients and their lobbyist - me - will get a fundraising phone call."

Obviously, this is a bi-partisan problem, but this sort of devil may care attitude is ridiculous and needs to stop.  Taxpayers are sick and tired of this subversive and counterproductive brand of politics.

Recently, the Contra Costa Times in California published an article about Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, and judging by the title, Rep. George Miller Delivers Millions For Campaign Contributor, you can be sure he was none to happy having his exploits exposed.

The article draws attention to a relationship between Mr. Miller and defense contractor SecuriMetrics, Inc, which is located in his district.  The article goes on to detail the $4.6 million in federal funding Miller has managed to secure for the company. 

Furthermore, Since 2004, Mr. Miller who is a staunch opponent of the war on terror, has also received & accepted over $16,090 in campaign contributions from current and past executives of SecuriMetrics. Meanwhile, he continued to acquire earmarks for SecuriMetrics.  I think you can draw your own conclusion.

Moreover, this money is being used for product development; I bet you didn’t know the money coming out of your paychecks would be going towards SecuriMetrics product development division…George Miller has seen a return on investment...have you?

Sadly, this story has become par for the course in Congress.  It is ridiculous that Members of Congress can send taxpayer dollars to their districts in exchange for lucrative campaign contributions. Despite what some of my colleagues may believe, they are not money machines and I am intent on putting this practice to an end.

I find that often times political cartoons can express a sentiment just as strongly as words do, and occasionally I post them here for you to see. 

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is worth at least 50 billion more…



Published in National Journal’s CongressDailyAM on June 9, 2008.

Since 1993, the Senate side restaurants have lost more than $18 million and it is estimated that the cafeterias have lost as much as $2 million already this year, and without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month. 

I know this may seem like something of pure fantasy, but I assure you it is true, and yet another example of government mismanagement. 

Last week in a late night voice vote, the Senate passed a measure agreeing to privatize its restaurants and cafeterias. According to GAO, the Senate Restaurants bring in more than $10 million a year in food sales but have turned a profit in only seven of the last 44 years in operation. 

Senator Feinstein (D-CA), blames the poor quality of food, but I am inclined to believe, as is the case in many government endeavors, the lack of entrepreneurial incentive contributes to poor food quality, high prices, and eventually the need for more government subsidy.

Senators needn’t look far for confirmation of a successful example of privatization; the House privatized its cafeterias in the 1980s, and since 2003 has turned a profit of roughly $1.2 million.

Yesterday afternoon, the Senate approved a bloated $3.1 trillion budget, $21 billion above the President’s request.  Despite the looming entitlement crisis and a deficit of nearly half a trillion dollars, the budget does nothing to address these issues, not to mention that it allows more than 20 million taxpayers to be burdened by the alternative minimum tax (AMT) after next year, it fails to renew President Bush’s tax cuts, doesn’t even point out the need for earmark reform, nor does it take into account the more than $50 billion dollar GI Bill, which will likely be approved by Congress sometime next week.

If it wasn’t apparent before, it is crystal clear now; the current majority is more willing to pass on existing problems to the next administration and Congress rather than work towards a solution now.

This scenario is courtesy of Americans for Tax Reform

This is a tax increase supported by Democrat Barack Obama and all Congressional Democrats, and opposed by Senator John McCain and Americans for Tax Reform.  These taxpayers have a face, and ATR will be showcasing them all week long.

The Davis Family: A Middle Income Family in Middle America

Mike and Susan Davis live in Canton, OH.  They have two children: Tommie is 5, and Christine is 3.  They have a household income of $65,000 (the median amount for a family of four).  They take the standard deduction.  How much are their taxes scheduled to rise?

If the Present Tax Code Remains in Place

The Davis’ will have a federal tax bill of $3000

Under the 2011 Tax

The Davis’ standard deduction is shrunk because of the return of the marriage penalty.

This means that their taxable income goes up.

The tax rate on the first several thousand dollars of their taxable income has grown by 50%.

The child tax credit has been cut in half, so Tommie and Christine don’t help as much.

The Davis’ tax bill will be over $5000—a full $2000 higher than if present law were simply kept in place.

Just before the recess, during a hearing on Capitol Hill Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) was questioning representatives and leaders from the petroleum industry.

I am afraid the truth is that this is indicative of what this Congress wants to do.

The Democratic majority has routinely rejected every proposed tax reduction on Americans and they have steadfastly stuck to their insistence on repealing every tax reduction passed during this century. That will raise taxes on every single American who currently pays taxes and add some new ones to the tax rolls.

But there is one group that apparently is deserving of a tax cut, according to the majority. Contingent fee trial lawyers. Yep, you heard me correctly. Buried in a recent tax increase bill (which I opposed and the president will likely veto) was a special tax break for trail lawyers paid under a contingent fee. It would allow them to deduct their expenses on a contingent fee case whenever they incur them rather than wait, as current law requires, until the case is concluded. This bill contained mainly tax increases on lots of other businesses. This was one of the few tax cuts in the bill.

Maybe this is to aid the struggling trial lawyer industry? After all, they are the engine of our economy aren't they? They employ so many people? Yeah right.

Is there any question what special interests rule the roost now?