Citizens Against Government Waste

[MO<1>]

The 2008 Pork List

A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork, a project must meet one of seven criteria that were developed in 1991 by CAGW and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition.

McCain - O projects, no money requested
Obama - 53 projects, $97.4 Million dollars
Palin - O projects, no money requested (not even eligible to request money)
Biden - 70 projects, $119.7 Million dollars

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage

"To advocate an efficient, sound, honest
government is neither left-wing nor right-wing,
it is just plain right."
-- J. Peter Grace, Co-founder CAGW

Even without the election, please visit this website and decide if you want your congressperson to quit wasting tax dollars!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sarah Palin, Pork Queen

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere," Sarah Palin recently told a crowd of McCain followers to much applause. John McCain has made fighting corruption, and specifically the practice of awarding earmarks, a central issue in his campaign. John McCain's campaign released an ad earlier this year specifically citing Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere," calling it "outrageous." The 233 million dollar project was to connect the city of Ketchikan with Gravina Island, which in the 2000 census, had a population of 50 people. McCain has touted Palin as a reformer, someone who also has fought corruption and government waste.

What the McCain campaign doesn't want mentioned is that Palin ran for Governor of Alaska in 2006 voicing her support of the Bridge to Nowhere. When the Bridge to Nowhere sparked nationwide outrage she changed her position, stating that the bridge wasn't needed, but Alaska didn't return the 233 million dollars to the federal government. Alaska simply used the money for other transportation projects. In a particularly absurd twist, a road on Gravina Island that was to connect to the Ketchikan- Gravina Island bridge is still being built. It's a road that will now lead to an empty beach. Why is it still being built? Because if it wasn't, the money for that part of the project would had to have been returned.

In fact, Palin's political career is a tale of vote-winning pork projects that paved her way from the tiny berg of Wasila, right to the governor's mansion. In 2000, as the mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired the firm Hoffman Silver Gilman & Blasco to bring home the bacon to Wasilla, resulting in $26.9 million worth of earmarks by 2004 for the town of 9,700 people. In fact, according to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin herself appeared in front of congress in 2000 requesting earmarks.

To understand the amount of federal earmark money slathered on Wasilla, Alaska during Palin's term compare it with Boise, Idaho. In the fiscal year 2008, Boise, with a population of 190,000 received 6.9 million in earmarks. Wasilla, Alaska, in 2002 received 6.1.

[MO<1>]

How about a link? Do you make up your facts or even attribute to a source? Is this pulled from the Travel Channell or Comedy Central?

The bottom line is Pork needs to stop.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by MO<1>

How about a link?

They are embedded throughout the entire article.

[MO<1>]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

They are embedded throughout the entire article.

So you are the original writer of this article? If you are, then I am impressed. If not, please cite the original source so credit can be given for intellectual property and primary source evaluation. I know this concept is way above the trees for people who do not get paid to write, but it is a common courtesy as a minimum. Check out the common link between both Dem canidates on the issue of using someone else's intellectual property.

It is hard to fathom that during Biden's long tenure- he could have asked for $100 Million a year. This certainly kept the lobbyists and his costituents returning him to the Senate.

Earmarks are even more of a reason to really examine a flat tax system, but it won't get by the corrupt people that butter thier bread by producing nothing but money. In Pres Bushes flat tax scheme, tax was only collected on the price of items purchase. No taxes on income or services. Federal tax was not to be collected from the individual citizen, but from the state based on its number of seats in the house. I believe this was the Federalist idea of taxation, but the Jefferson experts on the board could probably explain better. No tax loopholes, no tax filing, no special interests at the Federal level, no exemptions, and tax even collected from alien residents. Too bad that all but a very tiny handful of our legislatures value real change and reform over earmarks. You can see those who have signed up for earmark reform on the non-partisan Citizens against wast website.

GO BRONCOS!

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by MO<1>

How about a link? Do you make up your facts or even attribute to a source? Is this pulled from the Travel Channell or Comedy Central?

The bottom line is Pork needs to stop.

Comdey Central.

[Mr.Meanie]

Originally Posted by MO<1>

In Pres Bushes flat tax scheme, tax was only collected on the price of items purchase. No taxes on income or services. Federal tax was not to be collected from the individual citizen, but from the state based on its number of seats in the house. I believe this was the Federalist idea of taxation, but the Jefferson experts on the board could probably explain better. No tax loopholes, no tax filing, no special interests at the Federal level, no exemptions, and tax even collected from alien residents.

So basically punish consumption and eliminate a major reason to pump money back into the economy. Sounds like a great plan

The flat taxers don't understand that our economy is a consumer based economy. Once we start punishing the consumers (by taxing them), and then taking away the incentive to plow their profits back into the economy (eliminating tax deductions), then our economy will stagnate and die.

Right now, corporations and individuals have serious incentive to do things like lease that extra car, remodel their homes, or buy that extra inventory before the end of the quarter....etc.

Does that make sense?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Mr.Meanie

So basically punish consumption and eliminate a major reason to pump money back into the economy. Sounds like a great plan

The flat taxers don't understand that our economy is a consumer based economy. Once we start punishing the consumers (by taxing them), and then taking away the incentive to plow their profits back into the economy (eliminating tax deductions), then our economy will stagnate and die.

Right now, corporations and individuals have serious incentive to do things like lease that extra car, remodel their homes, or buy that extra inventory before the end of the quarter....etc.

Does that make sense?

No kidding. I've always wondered at that logic. Our economy is based on consumption so let's tax consumption? WTF?

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Mr.Meanie

So basically punish consumption and eliminate a major reason to pump money back into the economy. Sounds like a great plan

The flat taxers don't understand that our economy is a consumer based economy. Once we start punishing the consumers (by taxing them), and then taking away the incentive to plow their profits back into the economy (eliminating tax deductions), then our economy will stagnate and die.

Right now, corporations and individuals have serious incentive to do things like lease that extra car, remodel their homes, or buy that extra inventory before the end of the quarter....etc.

Does that make sense?

No its bullshlt. Say your 2008 profit is 500K you should be able to hold on to and save that money if you want and not be punished if you dont go spend that money like a drunken sailor in December. Then if 2009 is a shltty year and you arent getting nearly the work you got in 2008 then that money that you saved and were wise with would get you through the shltty times so you aren't being forced to lay off good workers because of the bad year. I hate it...but, like our accountant said, we may really really like that number thats in the bank, but the IRS looooooooooooves it.

Car dealerships, home remodelers, and material suppliers love the tax code I suppose but it forces small successful businesses into bad business decisions. But when you have to go buy that new ________ or the government will take the money you worked your ass off for that year, well, you have to. Guess it all depends on which side of the aisle you are on, but personally, our company doesnt need 6 ****in vehicles right now, and the reason why we are so profitable is because we are able to keep a low overhead.

Wish it would be you make 500K the government steps in says OK, no matter what you do with that money we are gonna get our $75,000-$100,000 and you do whatever you want with the rest of it. Rather than OK we got 500K we either need to spend most of that on blah blah blah or the Gov't will step in and take 300K.

[Drek]

How about Citizens for Governmental Transparency?

John McCain's earkmark request for the University of Arizona in 2006.

McCain defends earmarks for Israel.

Palin plays the game too, received twice as much as Biden and Obama combined.

According to state records and Taxpayers for Common Sense, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has asked for about $450 million in federal money since she became governor.

Palin also got into the earmarking game early, before she became governor. According to state records and Taxpayers for Common Sense, she helped get about $27 million, some of which went to the small Alaskan town of Wasilla, during her second term as mayor there, from 1998 to 2002.

McCain has even called out Palin's earmarks.

In a 2001 statement opposing a transportation spending bill McCain singled out for criticism about $3 million worth of those projects. McCain's list of "objectionable" spending included a $2.5 million road project for the town that then had a population of 5,500, as well as a $450,000 appropriation for an agricultural processing plant

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No kidding. I've always wondered at that logic. Our economy is based on consumption so let's tax consumption? WTF?

There are basically two kinds of people who buy it:

1) The fat cats who benefit from it.

2) The idiots who are probably too young to remember how trickle down economics worked out for America the last time around.

[Mr.Meanie]

Originally Posted by spdirty

No its bullshlt. Say your 2008 profit is 500K you should be able to hold on to and save that money if you want and not be punished if you dont go spend that money like a drunken sailor in December. Then if 2009 is a shltty year and you arent getting nearly the work you got in 2008 then that money that you saved and were wise with would get you through the shltty times so you aren't being forced to lay off good workers because of the bad year. I hate it...but, like our accountant said, we may really really like that number thats in the bank, but the IRS looooooooooooves it.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I believe if you're not encouraging spending, but instead PUNISHING spending - the economy will stagnate - badly. People won't buy houses because they don't want to pay 15% tax on a 300,000 house - or trade in that car because they will be hit with a

Originally Posted by spdirty

Car dealerships, home remodelers, and material suppliers love the tax code I suppose but it forces small successful businesses into bad business decisions.

Don't you understand, it's not just those businesses, it's pretty much EVERY business that loves the tax code. I can't think of one business that doesn't get a boost from people buying things for tax write-off. And then that company in turn does the same thing. For example:

Say I have a small business that made $500k last year. I decide to invest 100k in remodeling my shop - because really it's only costing me 70k after taxes and it's something I wanted to do anyway. Well I spend 100k with the remodeler, and he all of a sudden has an extra 100k he wasn't expecting. So he decides to lease a new piece of equipment from an equipment manufacturer - because the quarter is coming up, and he needed the new equipment anyway and it's really a writeoff. Then the manufacturer has a new lease, and decides to reinvest ...etc etc etc. It's called Capitalism.

I can't even tell you the amount of money I wouldn't have spent if it wasn't a writeoff. There are literally hundreds of business meals, golf outings, trips, purchases, etc that I would not have done if I was going to be penalized 15%. Honestly I would have saved that money and probably spent it in Europe or something. It certainly wouldn't be going back into the economy.

Originally Posted by spdirty

Wish it would be you make 500K the government steps in says OK, no matter what you do with that money we are gonna get our $75,000-$100,000 and you do whatever you want with the rest of it. Rather than OK we got 500K we either need to spend most of that on blah blah blah or the Gov't will step in and take 300K.

Actually it's not anywhere near 300k...but nice try. As a small business person, I would probably end up spending MORE in taxes with a consumption-based flat tax than I do currently.