That is what my husband called me during a conversation the other day. I do not know what the means or if he meant it meanly. I will guess though that he loves me either way. He is taking an economics class and had to do a project in which he decided to incorporate politics. We got into a really good talk over things and I decided it was blogable. A lot more blogable then the stupid parent today at the park that nearly burned her chocolate covered, soda drinking’ one and a half year old three times with her cigarette.
First off let me say congrats to Obama for making it to actual candidacy. I may be a right wing extremist but know a better option when I see. I am, at this point, for neither major option (McCain or Obama), I just want to address some of their good ideas and promote the individual ideas as I see are better.
I have learned from a cnnmoney.com article that Obama wants to reduce earmarks to the level they were in 2001. I had no idea what earmarks are, so I searched and found that these are “congressional provisions directing approved funds to be spent on specific projects (or directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees)”. This is one of the many good things Barack has to say. The amount of the earmarks for 2008 is numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion. In 2001 the number I could not find in my search but in 2000 it was about 1.7 billion and in 2002 it was 2.2 billion, I guess it would be somewhere in there. This years earmarks are a total of 18.3 billion with a whapping total of $296.8 billion. Obama would like to bring back a pay-go rule which means that you will need to cut from somewhere to get money for what you want. With this plan Obama will hope to save us about 16.1 billion. This is a lot of money that could be used for better things. If it works right then unnecessary wants will not be purchased to the sacrifice of the needed spending. Good idea Obama… What is your plan after this enactment? Will there be a set time at this level? Will there be a regulated rising or is this flat rate?
McCain, one the other hand, would like to freeze discretionary spending to assess which programs should stay and which should go. Also, he wants to remove all earmarks. Again, I had no idea what that is and found that discretionary spending is spending set by annual appropriation levels made by decision of Congress. The numbers on that $1.114 trillion is what will be spent this year alone. If McCain can figure what is needed and has cut this down by 25% that will be $278.5 billion in addition to what Obama has proposed with ear marks alone. This cutting off of discretionary spending appeals to my right wing extremist views as mentioned in Part I (to be written at another time). All the needed programs or whatever will be forced to find money elsewhere taking the governments funding out of the equation. The less government to more ~T happiness! In a perfect world they will have made their own money and would no longer need to take ours.
Remember that McCain will start off ahead of Obama in total numbers because as sated he will freeze DS for one year which will save us 1.114 trillion dollars. Obama’s idea of returning to the pay-go plan where if you want money you will need to figure out who will get less, and will not save us as much. This means that another program could get cut pointlessly because we Americans have no idea about living within our means. Having said that I suppose the same could be said on the other idea except with more in our pockets, there will be more to spend at business, which in turn could pay for the needed discretionary spending that will make us all happy. Like I asked above, Obama did not say how long this return would last, therefore to remain honest he only has to do it for two days and then the boost could reoccur. He also has plan for the money so we won’t see any benefit just yet. .
Now I know that you as good voters will look at the issues and do your own research, I did my research and to me it seems clear that, in this case, McCain has a better plan of it with defined time periods, and a clear goal.
Good Luck Obama and McCain….Were are all the other runners????
You're absolutely right about Americans living within their means. If I were living within my means, I wouldn't have a home or a car. I don't think I would even be able to eat much, but every once in a while. It's hard to live within your means when it's so difficult to find a job. Our economy is in the toilet right now. Thank goodness for credit, dor now it's keeping a roof over my head.....
I guess I'm just not sure if cutting discretionary spending is enough to fix our overall economy and the citizens stuck in it.
It is more then the ear mark thing solo. McCain's over all goal is to step back at least twenty five percent in discrationary spending after he can find what exactly is needed. First year a trillion dollars save the next year 25% of a trillion dollars saves...all this plus (or minus) the ear mark idea...Sounds good if it works
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
I was just discussing earmarks with another blogger today. I'm a little surprised to hear that Obama wants to cut earmarks in budget bills, when he himself is an earmark spender. In 2008, he spent nearly $100 million in earmarks. Shockingly, despite this gross misuse of funds, he is only ranked the 70th largest earmark spender in Congress by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste. There are 69 other Senators who have actually spent more than $100 million in earmarks this year.
McCain's place on the list? He's 100th. As in, he spent $0 in earmarks this past year. Now, while earmarks and "pork barrel spending," as it's often called, are a big political issue, they only account for a tiny fraction of our national budget. McCain's plan to limit discretionary spending would save a lot more money.
Here's the list I was referring to up there, in case you were curious. Check out the rest of this site, if you're a fiscal conservative. Check it out if you're not, too.
I guess that means that Obama knows best what could go easily...
I really liked you list thanks for putting the link.
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
It takes a whole lotta political will to cut discretionary spending and annual earmarkage. In the 2006 election I was talking to liberal-Democrats who were actually considering voting for the conservative, Conrad Burns, because of his incumbent seniority in the senate (meaning he was able to bring in many earmarks and federal grants to state projects). Interesting I thought. I always tried to reason with them--The Democratic challenger, Jon Tester, should bring about the needed change that we should applaud, I argued. Sure, the money faucet will dry up, but it'll be good for the country in the long term.
Sure enough, Jon Tester won the election because of Burns' ties to corruption (Jack Abramoff). The result was interesting-- in my hometown, for example, the Missoula Art Museum lost federal funding that Burns had promised...
It's really a double-edged sword, because the Museum is something that I really support and those funds would have really brought beautiful things into my community. And yet I agree with you for the most part--earmarks, which are inserted rather than approved by the legislative body, are undemocratic--even though they can bring about meaningful construction.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?