Republicans and the budget

I’m tired of Republicans. In this article there is a comment by Colorado Republican Ken Buck. “I don’t know anyone who believes we’re going to balance the budget in 10 years.” I could do it. I know for a fact that I could do it. I’d likely even end up with a surplus. Let’s look at the numbers.

According to the Department of Treasury (1) the total revenue for the federal government was $3,021,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 (Oct. 2013 – Sept. 2014). The total outlays (expenditures) was $3,504,000,000, leaving $483,000,000 in debt. Those are obviously very large numbers. My solution would fix that problem. First, I’d start at $0 instead of starting with an existing budget. I’d then determine what was absolutely necessary. Defense, courts, interest, and *interstates* (no grants for local development). Obviously, there is a lot of waste in these areas, but by going back to basics we could end up with a budget surplus, pay off the debt, and nearly eliminate federal taxes. By doing so states can be left to take care of everything else (10th Amendment). If the federal government isn’t taking our money then the states can decide which programs they want to pay for and which they don’t. This brings the burden (and accountability) to a more local area. It also forces the people who benefit from the program to pay for the program instead of taking money from Missouri to pay for high speed rail in California.

The idea that you can’t balance the budget in 10 years is ludicrous. The problem is that they don’t want to eliminate unnecessary programs in order to balance the budget. The first place to look is the group of “non-essential” people who don’t go to work during a government shutdown.

(1) http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0914.pdf

h/t Fox News

Congress can’t do anything right…

“If we don’t win this battle today, we’ll attach [the legislation] to another bill and win the war.” — North Dakota GOP Sen. John Hoeven

This quote is in regards to a vote on a bill to approve the Keystone pipeline. Why don’t I believe him? Because Republicans just finished a “battle” to stop Obama’s immigration actions and not only did they lose, but they gave up. The language was tied to a Homeland Security funding bill and they gave up. The immigration actions relate directly to homeland security AND the department would have continued to operate without approved funding, but they still decided to give up. That is why I have absolutely no faith I the Republicans to pass the Keystone bill.

h/t http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/04/gop-senate-fails-to-get-enough-votes-to-override-obama-keystone-veto-says-fight/

Just what we need, more borrowing.

The Obama administration just announced that he has taken executive action to make it easier for people to get mortgages and buy homes by lowering mortgage insurance from 1.35% to .85%. Obama said “That’s enough to save the average buyer $900 a year, that’s $900 to pay for groceries, gas, a child’s education, or depending on what it is, your monthly mortgage payment.” Let’s think about this. If an average of $75 a month is *that* important to you, perhaps you shouldn’t be buying a house in the first place.

This is stupid. It seems like Obama wants to set the country up for failure that way, if Republicans do win the White House in 2016, they can be blamed when it all goes crashing down again.

H/T TheBlaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/08/obama-wants-more-borrowing-for-home-purchases-vows-not-a-repeat-of-08-crisis/)

You’d think these idiots would get it.

Really? They have the majority in the House and they continue to pass this junk? Some Republicans were replaced with new Republicans in the November elections. I’m fairly certain more of them need to be replaced. I’m fairly certain Billy Long will be one of those, but first we need to find a suitable replacement. Boehner definitely needs to be replaced.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/11/house-passes-unpopular-1-trillion-spending-bill-after-hours-of-wrangling-for-votes/

Maine is on the right track with illegal immigration.

According to an article from Top Right News, Maine Governor Paul LePage has decided to cut funds to cities that give aid to illegal immigrants. I mostly agree with this decision, especially given the number of cities that have decided to ignore state and federal laws that they refuse to follow. I have a couple of problems with this whole thing though.

For one, we all know how local governments will handle this. Instead of fixing the problem, they’ll continue to fund the activities of those who are here illegally and cut funding for the activities they should actually be funding. The second issue is that I don’t believe states should be funding cities just as I don’t believe the federal governments should be funding local and state governments. A government should be supported by its constituents, not by everyone else. For example, citizens of Springfield should be funding projects within Springfield instead of all Missourians doing so. It makes no sense for others to pay for our projects.

If the latter of the two were fixed, I believe we’d have fewer issues with the former because they’d purely be supporting their activities with their own money. Once the citizens can see how much of their own money is used to support illegal activities, they’d demand changes in their governments.