States Should Tell Feds To Take A Hike
May 8, 2014 Commentary, Political
The federal government holds states hostage to federal tax dollars. It works like this; the states collect tax money and send it to the federal government, then the federal government doles it out to the states.
This paradigm makes states dependent on the federal government and leads to coercion on the part of the feds.
If the federal government makes the speed limit 55 mph then any state that does not comply has highway funds withheld. If a state does not do what the federal government dictates with regard to health care then Medicare funding is withheld.
See how it works? They take money from the states and then force the states to comply in order to get any of it back.
The newest case of extortion comes from the federal government in regard to the state of Indiana. That state had the audacity to drop the Common Core standards. For those unfamiliar Common Core is billed as a way to teach for better results when it is really a mumbled mess that dumbs down students and teaches them to be dependent on government. Common Core will not prepare students to compete in the modern world. Common Core is indoctrination to the left’s view of things.
The federal government has told Indiana that it must prove that its standards are just as challenging as Common Core or its federal funding will be in jeopardy. It should not be hard to show that any program is just as (or more) challenging than Common Core but since the feds will decide there is no telling if Indiana will make the grade (pun intended).
[note]The only challenging thing about Common Core is making sense of it.[/note]
So Indiana faces losing federal funding for education. Considering there should be no federal funding of education (not in the Constitution as a federal concern) perhaps it is time for Indiana to take a stand.
Ideally the state would stop sending all federal taxes collected to the federal government until the feds left the state alone but that would cause problems for the citizens who pay those taxes.
[note]Technically, employers collect federal taxes on income and send them to the IRS so states would have to force employers to send the taxes to the state for disbursement. Might be a difficult task but it could be done. Any federal tax the state collects directly and sends to the feds could easily be withheld.[/note]
Perhaps Indiana should determine what amount of money the feds have been “providing” for education, determine what percentage that is of the total taxes paid in, and deduct that percentage from the amount sent to DC.
Indiana can tell the feds that the state is withholding the funds and will use them as it sees fit.
The same could be done by states that are forced to comply with some transportation related federal mandate (like speed limits). The state could collect the federal gas tax and hold it in escrow until the feds capitulate.
Force the federal government to stay in its own lane and stop infringing on the states.
Perhaps all states should start withholding the percentage sent to the federal government for unconstitutional programs and spend the money internally without it having to pass through DC. The Tenth Amendment is there for a reason and until states start pushing back the federal government will continue to infringe.
Time to castrate the federal government and bring the power back where it belongs; to the states or the people respectively…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: common core, constitution, education, indiana, lies, state's rights
One Small Step For Education, One Giant Leap For Obamakind
Jan 3, 2009 Political
When Barry Obama was running for the office of president he was loud and proud about his plans to delay some of the space exploration programs in order to divert money to education. Keep in mind that money is NOT the problem in our educational system. We continually throw money at education and things never get better. But Obama is beholden to the teacher’s union so he clearly said that we could not afford to spend all this money in space and have men walking on the moon when we have children who can’t read. A November 2007 article reports it this way:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released a new $18 billion education plan yesterday that he proposes to pay for by delaying the NASA Constellation program (to return humans to the moon) five years.
“We’re not going to have the engineers and the scientists to continue space exploration if we don’t have kids who are able to read, write and compute,” Obama said. Wired.com
But now that Obama has won, space exploration and putting a man on the moon is a matter of urgency because of China’s increased space presence. According to Bloomberg, Obama is anxious to speed up the mission to the moon because the Chinese have been building a military presence there:
President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.
Assuming that Obama is not going to cut out the 18 billion dollars he promised to education (once again, money is not the problem) where will he get the money for the increased tempo he will demand of NASA and the Pentagon?
Obama is already on track to sign a one TRILLION dollar stimulus package and he will spend TRILLIONS more on his pet programs and as payback to those who supported him. Where will we get the money. For all the talk about balancing budgets and being the responsible party, they are planning to spend like there is no tomorrow.
As an aside, how much is a TRILLION? If you earned $1000 a second it would take you just over 31 years to earn a trillion dollars. A stack of $100 dollar bills totaling 1 TRILLION dollars would be 789 miles high which is about 144 Mount Everests stacked on top of each other. A box that holds a case of copier paper will hold about $72,000 one-dollar bills. It would take 1.4 billion boxes to hold a trillion dollars. One more, a trillion seconds ago was 32,000 years ago (source).
We are talking huge sums of money and since he has now decided to do the space thing and his education plan we will be adding more debt on top of the huge debt load Congress and politicians of all stripes are burdening us with each and every day.
I know we are screwed no matter what but I thought it was worth while to point out how quickly Obama changed his mind about spending money to send men to the moon.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: education, moon mission, nasa, Obama, trillion
Obama and Parenting
Apr 11, 2008 Political
Barack Obama, the man who wants to be the president, has some advice on parenting and that advice is for parents to take responsibility for their children. In a recent speech Obama stated:
“Parents if you don’t parent, we can’t improve our schools,” he said. “You’ve got to parent. You’ve got to turn off the television set in your house once in a while, you’ve got to put the video game away once in a while.” My Way News
It is interesting that Obama would tell parents that they have to actually be parents to their children and that they have to turn off the TV or the video game because that would indicate that he thinks parents should be involved in the lives of their children. But this is the same Barack Obama who believes that parents should not be involved in the lives of their young daughters who become pregnant. At that point parents are supposed to stay out of the way. Obama is happy with las that do not require parental notification for girls who seek abortions.
Obama is a Democrat so we already know that he does not advocate personal responsibility. He believes that the only way people can survive is to have big government paying their way and bailing them out of their mistakes. Make a bad loan, no problem Obama and the Democrats will have other taxpayers foot the bill. Don’t work, no problem they will give you welfare. Don’t worry about being responsible for your health as Obama and the Democrats will give you health care paid for by the rest of us.
The fact is, Barack Obama does not believe in personal responsibility and his voting record as well as his political beliefs show. This is the same man who stated that if his daughters got pregnant he would want them to be able to abort the child so they would not be “punished” with a baby.
Actions have consequences and Democrats generally fail to see that as their whole belief system is based on the assumption that people are too stupid to live their own lives and need the government to run every aspect of their existence.
Yes, there is too much TV and too much video game playing but that is a smaller part of the overall problem. There is too much government intrusion into our lives and with Obama we are guaranteed to get much more of that.
Parents, if you want your children to get an education and be raised properly demand that the government get out of education. Stop subjecting your children to the liberal prattle that they are bombarded with each and every day.
Personal responsibility? That is a novel idea for the Democrats. Republicans have believed in that for a long time. Perhaps parents can start educating their children by just saying no to liberals…
BTW, is this the same Obama who was raised by his grandparents? Where were his parents when it was time to raise a child?
Tags: abortion, education, Obama, parenting, responsibility
Obama Needs to Go on the Offensive
Jan 23, 2008 Political
B. Hussein Obama has been on the defensive since former President bill Clinton came out attacking him. Obama has been forced to defend himself against half truths often conjured up at the last minute in order to sway primary elections. The Wall Street journal indicates that Obama is getting an education in Clinton. The WSJ relates:
One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton’s attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, “You gotta do what you gotta do.” WSJ
Obama is learning the hard way that the Clintons do what they “gotta” do regardless of what it is because to them, winning is everything. Right now Obama is facing a fierce Bill Clinton who is doing what he has to do in order to distort a record and smear a fellow Democrat. Those of us on the right like to see the fighting among Democrats but are also reminded of the terror reigned on this country during the eight years Clinton was president. For Democrats, it is indeed a sad day when John Edwards appears most presidential, or as he put it, the only adult present at the debate.
It is time for Obama to do what he has to do. He has indicated he will strike back at Bill Clinton but that might not be a good strategy. Clinton is well liked among the party faithful and attacking him will continue to take the focus off the weaknesses of Hillary. Obama can attack Bill through Hillary and take the lead in addressing issues that were neglected during the Bill Clinton presidency.
Obama can make a good case when he tells the people that the Clinton co-presidents had eight years and failed to accomplish those things she vows to take care of now. Obama can tell people that the Clintons had eight years to fix Social Security and they neglected it even though Bill stated that it was broken and needed to be fixed. I believe he even thought private accounts was a good idea.
Obama can make the case that the Clintons had eight years to get health care for everyone (an item Hillary failed miserably on), eight years to make sure Medicare was efficient and provided for the elderly, and eight years to develop and implement an energy plan that reduced our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. Eight years to do all these things and they failed to accomplish them.
When Bill Clinton was running the first time he told us all that you get two for the price of one and Hillary told us it was a co-presidency. During this campaign Hillary has taken credit for the good things that happened back then. If she takes credit for the successes it is reasonable to attribute the failures to her as well. Obama can go on the offensive and strike H. Rodham Clinton on the very issues that she says she will fix and at the same time take shots at her husband without directly confronting him. This will tell the voters that the Clintons had their eight years and failed to get it right and it is unlikely that giving them more time will change this.
Obama has had a campaign of change, a mantra adopted by Hillary as well as some of the Republicans running for office. If Obama is convinced he is the candidate of change he needs to point out the failures of the Clinton co-presidency and make sure the failures are attributed to Hillary. If this does nothing more than cause the Clintons to go on the defensive it will have been worth it. The more the Clintons are forced to defend their record the less time they have to manufacture half truths about Obama.
It is win-win for Obama because if Hillary fights the charges and says that she was not the president it will allow him to point out that she cannot take credit for anything that happened then and will negate her experience claim. If she defends the co-presidency she will be drawing more attention to those failures leaving less time for them to attack.
It is time for B. Hussein Obama to take off the gloves and start hitting hard. It is time for him to strike blows where it will hurt and that is the ever changing Clinton legacy. Blame her for the failures and make her defend why she did not get those things done back then. make her explain how she will do it now when she could not do it then. Make Bill defend their record rather than attacking his.
Obama can get dirty without attacking Bill directly and causing a rift among the Democratic base by attacking the record and attributing it to her. He will come out ahead if he takes this approach.
It is time for Obama to show he is a quick study and has gotten a quick education in Clinton politics of personal destruction. otherwise, he will have to repeat the class in four years.
Socialized Hillary; from Cradle to Grave
Sep 28, 2007 Uncategorized
Hillary Rodham said that each child born in the US should receive a $5000 bond that will accrue while the child ages and will be turned over to the child for college or a down payment on a first home. This is more socialized clap trap and involves the government in our lives even more. Pathetically, it involves our children from the day of their birth and makes them part of the nanny state from day one. The federal government runs Social Security and it has been a tremendous failure that keeps the elderly who were not able to save, in the poor house.
There are problems with this idea right from the start. Where will this money come from and will it be placed in a dedicated account? The first answer is obviously the taxpayer, who will be forced to foot the bill for someone else’s education or home down payment. The second is probably a flat out no. This means a $5000 IOU will mature and accrue interest and then the government will have to come up with a way to pay out. If they decide to place the money in an account and it is not dedicated to the child AND ONLY THE CHILD then the government will rape that account as it has done to SS for the last three or four decades.
What rules will be placed? Will the government decide that children from wealthy families may not have the bond because they should be able to pay their own way? What happens if the child dies before the bond is paid out? These, and many more, are questions that should be asked long before we allow them to do this because they have a terrible history of handling money and when they take it from you it is no longer yours. If we were allowed to have Social Security deductions (our money) go into our own accounts that could not be touched by the government then they might have more credibility. I don’t like it either way because I think that people should be responsible for their own retirement savings and not live off the hard work of others.
This is the other issue I have with these baby bonds. It is not the job of government to provide education or house payments and using a redistribution of our wealth to do it is socialism plain and simple. If the government wants to make it easier for people to save for their children’s education or house payment then perhaps they could stop taxing the hell out of us and let us invest our own money and take care of our own needs. Between the federal government and the states we pay a high percentage of our earnings in taxes. Let us keep more of that money and invest it.
Hillary is a socialist and she wants big brother to take care of all the minions. It guarantees successive generations of poor voters who will vote to keep Democrats in office so they can have more hand outs. Perhaps by cutting our taxes (and that means reigning in the spending) people will be able to put more away.
Cutting off federal programs that give money away will force them to do it. Once they learn not to depend on the government and to save, they will enjoy the freedom.
Source:
Breitbart
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, Stix Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: bonds, education, Hillary, house payments, Political Commentary, savings, socialism