Not Very Much

Holy smokes, how out of touch is Mitt Romney? The man already comes across as a tool and a phony. Did he really have to go and say something that would glaringly highlight how wealthy he is and how he doesn't look at money the same way that regular people do? Apparently he must have because he did.

People have been hammering Mitt more and more lately to release his tax returns. Not surprisingly, Mitt doesn't really want to do that. Oh, sure, he's said that he is considering releasing them around tax time in April. But that would be a point in time that is likely past when the Republicans will have decided upon a nominee for their clueless party. (Don't get me wrong. The Democrats are just as clueless, but they already have their nominee chosen.) How convenient. Release something that you must think is going to be damaging after you've already secured the position that you want. I wonder if he's surprised that we're all seeing through his complex scheme?

He might actually be surprised because he seems so out of touch with other things that it wouldn't be improbable for him to think that all of us little people can just be swayed with his toothy grin and suave words that he got from all of that book learnin'. He did come out and say a few things about his taxes. The first thing he mentioned was that his tax rate is probably around 15%. OK, the guy has over $200 million dollars. He makes a buttload of money every year from that money. Kids, this is what is known as a tax loophole. Making money off of capital gains is taxed at a different rate than the money you make when you haul your ass out of bed every morning and do something in exchange for cash. People with lots of money like these sorts of loopholes.

But that's not the most out of touch thing that he said in regard to his own income and financial situation. See, he made money from speaker's fees. Apparently, there are a lot of people and/or organizations out there that think Mitt Romney is worth paying in order to have him talk to you. In regard to these fees, Mitt said, "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much." Really, Mitt? Not very much? Oh, that must mean 'not very much' for someone who is worth about $200 million because the amount of money that he earned from speaking for one year (2010 through early 2011) was $374,328. I'll wait while you process that.

I'm back! Yes, he actually referred to almost four hundred thousand dollars as "not very much". Good Lord, Mitt. I realize that to someone with his sort of money, almost four hundred grand might not be very much. But to come out and say it like that? That's just idiotic. He is in the upper one percent of the one percent and he just doesn't get that. Does he know that in South Carolina (where the next round of Republican nominee powwows is set to take place) that the average annual personal income per capita is $28,285? Now, twenty-eight grand is "not very much". Mitt's "not very much" is over thirteen times South Carolina's "not very much"! You know what that equals? Very much! That is correct!

Seriously, who are this man's handlers? Or does it even matter? Is he just so rich that he has gone through his entire life without having to ever answer to anyone? Is he just so rich that he has gone through his entire life without anyone ever questioning anything that he ever said? (Because people will kiss a rich man's ass like no other.) I'll bet Mitt also thinks that he's hilarious because all of his life everyone has laughed at every joke he's ever told, even when most of them aren't funny, because of the position that he's in. I'm guessing that he sees the world and the world around him in a completely different way than it actually is.

I think that I've made this offer before, but I'm making it again. Mitt, if you need a consultant, an adviser, a handler, whatever you want to call it, I'm available. Mind you, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney or the Republican party. But I could teach this guy a few things about the public's perception of politicians. I could also give him some better jokes.

Sphere: Related Content

He Won't Pay It

The latest celebretard to come out and say that they'd be willing to pay more taxes is none other than Jay-Z. He's got 99 problems, but a tax ain't one. According to the Huffington Post, Mr. Z was on CNN when he uttered this statement: "Me, personally, I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if it went to the things that really mattered," he said to CNN. "If it went to education, to people in poverty, I wouldn't mind." Oh, good Lord.

If it went to things that really mattered?! Now, I realize that he has just stated what he thinks "matter". Those things being like people in poverty and education. I love it when people like him think that the way to solve a problem is to just throw more money at it. How about if, before the subject of raising taxes comes up, we find places where we can cut? How about if we find waste and stop it? Everyone just wants to spend while there are ineffective programs and departments all over the place that we could cut which would free up or save some money. Why don't any of these people who think that their offer to pay more taxes is so gracious, how come they don't ever mention the incredible waste that is going on?

Well, I think that this next statement of Mr. Z's might answer that question (or at least give you some insight into the answer). He also said: "I think most people with a conscience, with some integrity and moral fiber wouldn't have any problem paying more taxes." Oh, spare me. People with a conscience and moral fiber?! THOSE are the people who wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes?! What about people with half a brain in their head who realize that the amount of waste and fraud and abuse is abundant and that just blindly throwing more money at the same people who are responsible for all of the waste isn't going to do anything?!

And I'm just going to mention again that if someone wants to pay more taxes, they are free to do so. There is a little box on your tax form that you can check if you would like to contribute more than you legally owe. So there you have it, Jay-Z. I will wait to hear back from you after April 15, 2012 when you have paid not only the taxes that you legally owe, but (because you're clearly a man with some integrity and moral fiber) that you also contributed more than you were required. And of course I have no reason to doubt that he'll do that, right? He's obviously very serious about it, so of course he'll check that little box and send in a boatload of more money. And the best part is that he won't even have a problem with it! Yeah. Right. If he ends up voluntarily paying more than he legally owes, I will eat my computer piece by piece. And I'm clearly not worried that something like that would happen because he isn't going to do that. I have yet to see any of these celebretards who say that they're willing to pay more taxes actually do it. Pipe down, Jay-Z.

Sphere: Related Content

Then Pay Them!

You know who needs to pipe down? Warren Buffett, that is correct. I'm pretty much over his act. And here's why:

All I keep hearing him say lately is that the rich should pay more taxes. That's his gig. Telling us that the rich should pay more taxes. He accentuates this stance by saying that he pays less in tax than his secretary. (I have to imagine he's talking percentages there. If he's talking actual dollar figures, then it's just game over.) And his solution is that the "rich" should pay more. Allow me to briefly explain why I can't stand to hear that anymore.

First, taxing the rich more isn't going to solve the problem because it still wouldn't generate enough money to make a difference. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be taxed, but I don't think that they should be overtaxed. What say we cut a butt load of spending first and then see where we're at, OK?

Second, define "rich". Let me tell you that if you're making, say, $100,000 per year in San Francisco, you are far from "rich". You're doing fine, but you're not rich. Now, take that same $100,000 per year salary and move it to some place like Kansas or Iowa (both lovely places). Now you're "rich". So, are we going to tax both of those guys the same even though due to their living situations that they're not really the same at all? I don't know what Warren Buffett's response would be to that, as I haven't heard it proposed. (Actually, I never hear about adjusting people's income based on cost of living in their area. Never. And it's totally a factor. God, this is why I hate the media.)

And finally, if Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, he CAN! You can pay as much in income tax as you would jolly well like. Nothing's stopping you. Just hand it over and they will gladly take it. But I haven't seen Warren Buffett doing that just yet. All I get is him yammering on about how he'll give it to them if they tax him, but he doesn't seem to be offering it up just on its own. Interesting. And really freaking annoying.

Sphere: Related Content

He Shouldn't Be Using Food Stamps

Contrary to my tone and demeanor around here, there are very few people and/or things that I actually hate. Sure, I despise things. Many, many things annoy the holy hell out of me. But I don't hate a lot of things or a lot of people. This Leroy Fick guy in Michigan, though? Yeah, I might hate him.

Here's the story: Leroy won $2 million dollars in a Michigan state lottery game called "Make Me Rich". Interestingly, the show is hosted by Peter Knight who played Peter on "The Brady Bunch". Good to know that he could find work. But back to Mr. Fick. You know. The guy I might hate? Yeah, him.

After Mr. Fick won his two million dollars, it appears that he was given the option of having it paid to him in installments (which usually are spread out over a ridiculous number of years, like 20) or taking the lump sum payment. He took the lump sum payment. Now, while you get a big pile of cash all at once, they do take out a boat load of taxes. It ends up being right around half. So, Mr. Fick still won about a million dollars. He's a millionaire. On food stamps. Wait a minute. He what?

That's right. He still uses food stamps. According to WNEM, there is some sort of idiotic loophole in the federal regulations that are used to determine who is eligible to receive food stamps. For reasons which I cannot even begin to fathom, the system does not take into account your liquid assets when you are applying for aid. Soooo...they don't ask you if you have any money to spend? Thus, if you have money, it doesn't matter because they don't ask you that? What in the hell are the requirements based on? With that low of a standard, I can't imagine that ANYONE would not qualify. Who's idea was THAT?!

He's not breaking any laws by doing what he's doing. He's just a jackass, that's all. A rich jackass who doesn't want to pay for his own food even though he is perfectly able to pay for his own food. And he apparently doesn't care, as he told the reporter guy, "Well, I think it's fair because of the way that they took the taxes." They're supposed to take out taxes, you moron! That's how the system works! Just because they take taxes out doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for your own food when you have the means to do so! He also thinks that using the food stamps instead of his own money is the "prudent" thing to do. Uh, listen here, sir. If you were so worried about being "prudent" with your money, you shouldn't have been spending the pittance that you did have every month on the freaking lottery! Playing the lottery is the absolute opposite of freaking prudent!


The reporter who spoke to this asshat continues to probe into what other services Mr. Fick receives a(s someone who has about a million dollars) and Mr. Fick tells him that he is also on disability. (I could say that he looks like he's fine, but I know that there are things that can be wrong with a person that you can't see. For example, this guy has the moral compass of a jackrabbit in heat. You can't just tell that simply by looking at the guy.) And from his point of view, he thinks that all of this is ethical.

The reporter asks him what he thinks that a single mother with two jobs and working eighty hours a week would think about him and all of his money collecting from social services that are offered.
"If you're going to sit there and try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it. It ain't gonna happen. So you might as well just ship on out. Goodbye." Do you hate him yet? Because I'm pretty sure that I do.

If this guy is able to totally take advantage of this system with as much money as he has, you know that there are others doing it. The country is going freaking broke and yet we have a system that allows for loopholes like this one. The guy drives a convertible Audi and is on freaking food stamps! We are so effing screwed and doomed. We're scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

No Mo Spending!

Holy crap. Someone in Washington (well, more than one someone) has actually come up with a list of proposed cuts to cut Federal spending. It actually happened. I'm stunned. Now, there's no guarantee that any of these things are going to actually get cut. But as I read the list, I was wondering how in the world we ended up spending a freaking DIME on some of these things! Seriously. Did you know that annually, the Federal government shells out $1 million in (wait for it) mohair subsidies?! Subsidies for the hair of a mo! I've never even seen a mo! How much hair do they have? How much do they need? Why do the mos and their hair require my money?! Ah, so many questions, so few answers. Let's look at some other proposed cuts that I can't believe we're already spending money on. (For the record, while I am a proponent of almost any sort of cut in spending, I am against any cuts to any sort of non-wasteful, effective spending on our military and for our veterans. Listen, you take a job knowing that you could end up stationed in one of the crazy, crazy Sand Lands for a few years, the least I can do is help you out a little bit when you get back.)

Get this: Did you know that there is a "death gratuity" for members of Congress? There is. Do you know what that means? I didn't, but when I looked it up, I was appalled. If you're a member of Congress and you die, your family gets a payment (that is paid for by the taxpayers) that is equal to one year's salary. According to something called The Daily Caller, when crooked ol' John Murtha croaked it "his family got a $174,000 payment". When the overly ancient Sen. Robert Byrd died, "...his family received $193,400." When Sen. Ted Kennedy died, "...taxpayers footed the bill for $174,000 in payments to his family." Do you think that ol' Ted Kennedy's family needed almost $200k? I can't possibly imagine that they did. Apparently, this thing "...was at one time meant to act as a form of life insurance for the families of Members who met an untimely demise". But now that almost every single Senator is a millionaire, I'm hardly thinking that this is necessary. (By the way, when my dad died, do you know how much the Social Security payout was to my mom? $252. Not $252 thousand. $252. I was so insulted I almost told them to keep it. Oh, and this was in 2005, not the fifties or anything. And I know that it's sort of apples and oranges, but they're both fruits, so there's some parallel here. Man, I like fruit.)

What else? Oh, they want to eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act (which has been screwing taxpayers since 1931) to save more than $1 billion annually. This Act basically made it so that government contracts must pay a prevailing wage. According to Wikipedia (take it for what it's worth), "All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects." So, there's no getting anything done cheaper if you can. Nope. No sense in even bidding low. Nope. That it costs over a billion dollars a year makes me insane. That it has been in effect since 1931 (even though it has been suspended from time to time), makes me even crazier. Wouldn't you think that someone would realize that if it is being suspended (for reasons such as faster recovery from hurricanes) on occasion and things are just fine without it, shouldn't it pretty much be deemed unnecessary? Oh, wait. It's a government program. Never mind.

Did you know that we provide economic assistance to Egypt? We do. Do you know how much assistance we provide Egypt? $250 million per year. Do you know WHY we assist Egypt? Neither do I. Their economy ranks 27th in the world. That's not too shabby. Their unemployment rate in 2009 was 9.37%. Um, that's kind of about the same as the unemployment here in the US. You don't think that we could have used that $250 million to economically assist our own citizens? Unbelievable. By the way, we're also giving $17 million dollars each year to Ireland. No answer for that one, either.

And this little recap wouldn't be complete if I didn't mention that we spent $76 million annually on something called the Appalachian Regional Commission. According to their website, "The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency that represents a partnership of federal, state, and local government." Why just in the Appalachian region? Let's see...well, it was established in 1965 by an act of Congress. OK. I'm noticing that it seems to encompass all of West Virginia, so I'm going to have to assume that a Senator from West Virginia was heavily involved in this getting started. Hmm...I'm also reading that it has something to do with the War on Poverty in the mountains. OK, that's it. What a bunch of crap. $76 million? Really? For 40 years? Unbelievable.

Below is the entire list of cuts that are proposed by my new heroes (well, for today), the Republican Study Committee (courtesy of The Huffington Post). Their study claims that "The plan would reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion over a decade". So when you hear some softhead say something to the effect of "it's just a drop in the bucket", please remind their dense, non-functioning selves that if you don't start putting drops of water IN the bucket, you're never going to fill up the bucket! You have to start somewhere! What part of that don't people understand?! Stop spending my money on the hair of the mo!

➢ Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

➢ Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
➢ International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
➢ Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
➢ Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
➢ Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
➢ U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
➢ Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
➢ Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
➢ John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
➢ Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
➢ Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
➢ Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

➢ Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
➢ Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
➢ Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
➢ Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
➢ New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
➢ Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
➢ Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
➢ Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
➢ Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
➢ Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
➢ FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
➢ Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
➢ U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
➢ General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

➢ Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
➢ No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
➢ End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
➢ Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
➢ IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
➢ Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
➢ Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
➢ Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
➢ USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
➢ Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

Sphere: Related Content

Stop Spending My Money On Stupid Crap

When people get all angry and uppity when talk of raising taxes comes around, it's not like there isn't a reason. There are plenty of reasons why so many people are sick of a buttload of wasteful spending and then having politicians tell us that we need higher taxes because there isn't enough revenue. Can't those morons figure this stuff out before they waste a gazillion of our tax dollars? The answer is no and I'm here to give you another example of an insane amount of money that was wasted on a bunch of crap. And by the way, it was pretty much crap from the get-go.

Have you heard of the "virtual fence"? In essence, it was supposed to be a technology based approach that would help secure our borders. No one ever really explained how it would work exactly and when they did try to explain how it would (hypothetically) work, they were still never sure if it would actually work. Even the freaking government knew how far-fetched it was. But do you think that stopped them from going full speed ahead with their project and your money? Of course not.

For the last five years, this unicorn project has been underway. Now, I don't know everything that they have been doing for the last five years, but I do know that they managed to spend ONE BILLION dollars while they were doing it. And if you're thinking that one billion dollars seems like a lot of money, you're damned straight that it is. It's going to seem like an awful lot after I tell you that after five years, this project has finally been deemed un-doable and has been canceled. Finally. One billion dollars later and someone finally pulled their head out of their arse. Great. It would have been a little bit nicer if someone could have pulled their head out of their arse before the one billion dollars had been spent. Perhaps, just maybe, someone could have paid attention to any one of a number of scathing reports that had been put together by the Government Accountability Office and then we wouldn't be in this position. But no. It took a billion dollars to induce said head pulling. Idiots.

And if you're wondering if we got anything at all for that one billion dollars, the answer is yes. Granted, it's not much, but it's something. Is it a billion dollars worth of something? Hell no. According to the New York Times, "In a pilot program in Arizona, it cost about $1 billion to build the system across 53 miles of the state’s border." A billion dollars? For fifty three miles of border? Yes. And mind you that in the "new approach" to border security, "...using mobile surveillance systems and unmanned drones already in the Border Patrol’s arsenal, would cost less than $750 million to cover the remaining 323 miles of Arizona’s border." Uh-huh. I see. Sooooo...if I do the math here, let's see...carry the two...divide into the...bring down the zero...all right then! ONE mile of "border security" cost approximately $18,867,925. That comes out to approximately $3,573 per foot. If you weren't angry before, you should be now.

While I enjoy the thought of unmanned drones whizzing along the border, I have a question. And I'm guessing that I must be missing something because I never even hear this brought up during discussions of border security. What in the world would be wrong with a big ass G-D fence? Have it go about ten stories below ground and about five stories above ground. Make it ten feet thick. Put some barbed wire at the top. Voila! What's wrong with that? I don't understand why it has to be all high-tech. Sure, high-tech is cool as can be, but all I want is for people to be kept out. I don't care if we don't use laser beams or teleporters to keep them out, just keep them out. And stop spending my money on stupid crap that isn't going to work! Spend my money to build a freaking fence and be done with it! At the very least, explain to me why a fence like I've described wouldn't work. But whatever you do, stop spending my money on stupid crap!

Sphere: Related Content

Your Tax Dollars Hard At Waste

Today I learned about ExpectMore.gov. (It's actually called www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore, but ExpectMore.gov will get you there.) It is a website, the purpose of such is apparently to make me very angry. It definitely sucked out most of my WTL (Will To Live) and kind of filled me with an HFOH (Heart Full Of Hate). Let's see if it makes you angry as well!

The purpose of the site (which is run by the Federal government) is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of all Federal programs and then rate whether the program is Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, Ineffective or Results Not Demonstrated. According to the page which explains what each rating actually means, Results Not Demonstrated means "...that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing." In other words, they're just screwing around. An Ineffective rating means that "Programs receiving this rating are not using your tax dollars effectively. Ineffective programs have been unable to achieve results due to a lack of clarity regarding the program's purpose or goals, poor management, or some other significant weakness." Well, that doesn't sound good. I guess the rating "Piece of S**t" didn't sound very official and that's why they went with Ineffective.

They have so far evaluated about 98% of the Federal programs and that amounts to 1,015 of them. Do you want to know how many are below Adequate? (And let me just tell you that the definition of Adequate isn't anything to throw a party over. It is indicative of a "...program that needs to set more ambitious goals, achieve better results, improve accountability or strengthen its management practices." Seriously, do you feel good about that? I don't.) Ready? 199 out of 1,015 are a complete waste of money. 19.6%. And that's not even ALL of the programs yet! More to come! Stay stuned!

Twenty percent of the governments programs have been deemed by the government to be doing nothing other than pissing away your money! That's astounding. Take a look at your next pay stub. Look at what you paid in Federal taxes. Take twenty percent of that and realize that, not only did you work to earn it and you can't have it, it isn't doing a damn thing and is being wasted. And when you hear what some of these programs are, you're going to be wondering why they were ever given money in the first place.

There's the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program. It's goal is "To improve the likelihood that persons eligible for the Food Stamp Program (FSP) will make healthy food choices within a limited budget and choose physically active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) and My Pyramid". Uh-huh. Like that's going to happen. Of course, they really have no way that they're doing this. And that's why their budget has gone from $600,000 in 1992 to (brace yourself) $147 million in 1992 and THAT was eight years ago! So in ten years, their budget grew to 245 times what it started out at! And if I'm reading the chart correctly (it's a little hard to follow and I know that's completely shocking to you) their funding for 2008 was $312 million. That means that it's doubled and then some in two years. And it's not doing anything! I wish I could have a budget for some worthless piece of crap double in the span of only two years. Good Lord. Got your axe handles at the ready? Torches? Pitchforks? I'm just getting started.

There's the National Writing Project which is "...to promote K-16 teacher training and professional development in the area of writing. The Project consists of one national office and a network of local sites through which teachers have access to training, professional development, and current research about the teaching of writing." HOW MANY teachers does that scope actually make up? Is it enough to make it worthy of $22 million in funding in 2008? Since when do our grades go from kindergarten to Grade Sixteen?! Isn't that a senior in college? Shouldn't they know how to write by then? Why do they still need to be taught how to write?

There is the Black Lung Clinics Program (BLCP) which received $6 million in 2008 and is "...to establish and operate clinics that identify, diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate active and retired coal miners with occupational exposure to airborne particles resulting in respiratory and pulmonary ailments." I'm sure that you'll be comforted and satisfied to learn that "Since implementation of the Black Lung Clinics Program in 1979, only one independent assessment of the program has been conducted. This assessment did not provide an evaluation of the program's effectiveness and was limited in the range of issues addressed." Oh, good. So, in thirty-one years there has been ONE assessment. Sure. That seems easily explainable. Not by me, of course.

Let's not forget the Workforce Investment Act - Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers which got $83 million in 2008 for the purpose of providing "...competitive grants to fund training, employment, and other services to help economically disadvantaged farmworkers and their families. Through these services, the program seeks to help them achieve economic self-sufficiency by strengthening their ability to gain stable employment." What the what?! You'll also want to know that "Each year, more than 60 percent of the program's approximately 30,000 participants receive only supportive services, like emergency cash assistance." Wait a minute.

30,000 participants and they get $83 million dollars?! For the guys that pick the strawberries that are frequently permanently visiting here from foreign lands?! Emergency cash assistance?! I know some folks who could use some emergency cash assistance. Oh, but they're citizens and they don't pick strawberries. Why is this sounding more and more backwards the more I go on. (And by the way, do you want to or should I tell the Federal government that it's not "farmworkers", it's "farm workers"? Two words. We're doomed.)

And these few that I have listed were merely some of the Ineffective programs. There are plenty of programs with ridiculous sounding names that were rated Results Not Demonstrated. Programs like the $49 million Mentoring Program (I swear to you that's what it's called), the $120 million Teaching American History program, the $20 million Packers and Stockyards program and the $4.783 billion Universal Service Fund E-Rate program which is supposed to "...help ensure that the educational benefits of telecommunications services are provided to schools and libraries. The program provides discounts on these services in varying amounts based on demonstrated economic need." (What, exactly, do they mean by "telecommunications"? A PHONE?!)

Now, maybe some of those or the other 169 programs whose results cannot be demonstrated are actually doing some good. Since they results can't be demonstrated, I'm sure that some jackass congressperson will make that argument. Hard to imagine that if they were actually doing some good that they wouldn't be able to prove it, though. Hard to imagine. It's also hard to imagine that 20% of these Federal programs don't do squat. And they wonder why we're having budgetary issues. They wonder why the consumer isn't spending more. It's because the country is being run by a bunch of folks who keep spending our money on crap like this. That's why.

Sphere: Related Content

The Condescending President

You know what I can't stand? Wait. Let me narrow that down a little bit, lest we be here all the live long day. You know what I can't stand about politicians? Wait. Hmm. There's no way of phrasing this without generating an incredibly long list of possibilities. I'll just cut to the chase. I can't stand a condescending politician. And I really can't stand a condescending President. I'm talking to you, President Barry.

The huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post tell us that President Barry was at some town hall meeting that CNBC broadcast live on Monday. And I guess that the question or the issue was simple enough. Apparently, an audience member pressed President Barry to chime in on what it is that makes the Tea Party movement do its thing. For some reason, President Barry seems to think that there are no specific goals that these folks have. I'm not sure why he thinks that. But whatever the reason is, he came across sounding like a condescending jackass.

Here's part of what he replied (and it's the part that really ticked me off): "So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?....It's not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it's important for you to say, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I'm willing to see these taxes go up. What you can't do, which is what I've been hearing a lot from the other side, is we're going to control government spending, we're going to propose $4 trillion of additional tax cuts, and that magically somehow things are going to work. Now, some of these are very difficult choices." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

There are two basic goals of the Tea Party movement. The second one can be almost automatic if the first goal is met. It's all about smaller government. Yes, it's also about lower taxes, but it's largely about smaller government. The government is huge and bloated. You don't think that there could be some cut backs in government there, President Barry? Really? Because you seem to think that we're all a bunch of idiots who would believe you that the only things that could be cut would be services that are essential.

This is what politicians do. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulls it at least once a year in California when they can't agree on a budget for this fiscally doomed state. They tell folks that, in order to stay within a budget, they're going to have to cut services like firefighters and policemen and school teachers. You don't want that, do you? No, of course not! That's when they justify raising taxes. But hold on a minute! Aren't there things within the governmental bureaucracy that could be cut other than firefighters, policemen and teachers? I'm 100% positive that there are.

President Barry, are you trying to tell me that every single government agency and department and job is absolutely, completely necessary? I don't think that it is. Are you going to tell me that every single government pension plan isn't overly generous? I don't think that you can tell me that and not have your nose grow at least six inches. You're trying to tell me that none of these governmental departments overlap and do the same work that other agencies do? And I'm supposed to believe you? Really?

How about, before you go suggesting cuts to Medicare and to veteran's benefits, you cut all services to those who are in this country illegally. How much money would that save? And that's just one area where money could be saved and where government could be shrunk. Don't go around threatening us by minimizing our obligation to our soldiers by suggesting that we should cut their services. How dare you. Seriously.

Smaller government. Lower taxes. Reduce the size of the government and spending will go down some. Reduce the size of the government to what it really needs to be reduced by and watch spending go down a great deal. Watch spending go down and watch the need to taxes to raise diminish. Remember, over fifty percent of Americans want fewer services and smaller government according to two different polls, one done in April of this year and the other conducted in September of this year. Over fifty percent want smaller government. Is that specific enough for you, President Barry? How else do we need to spell it out for you?

Sphere: Related Content

Tea Party Photo Goodness

Yesterday was tax day here in the US. And as one could expect, there were Tea Party protests/rallies/demonstrations across the country. They were entertaining, but not as entertaining as the health care protests last summer were. Now those were something. One of the main differences that I've noticed is that the Tea Party folks, for the most part, can spell. That doesn't mean they know what they're talking about, but it is concerting that they have a grasp of the basics. That being said, let's take a look at some signs and scenes from yesterday, shall we?

Here we have a child being made to hold a sign that is supposed to represent her feelings. The sign reads "Obama took my toof fairy money!" He apparently also took the forward facing Fs, Rs and Es, as well as the TH sound.

That wasn't the only sign wielding child out yesterday. Here's another one. Um, honey? I'm not so sure that you want to be part of a "tea bagger family". Tea party family, perhaps. But I think that being a "tea bagger family" is probably illegal. Definitely off-putting.

I appreciated the originality of the Tea Party Mobile or whatever you want to call it below. I like how there's just a little bit of everything thrown in there. Jesus. Truth. Insanity. Disaster. Lies. Taxes. Pork. Health care. Right. Wrong. Repent. Perverts. Wait. Perverts? Yep. Over there on the left. Next to Pork. Perverts. OK. I'm against perverts. Nice. Thanks.

This was one of the very few misspelled signs that were out there. The sign to the left of it was one of the most all inclusive signs out there.

It wouldn't be a protest in America without some nutjob questioning President Barry's citizenship. What is wrong with you people?

Where's the birth certificate? It's on the Internet, nutjob. And yes, it's real. For cryin' out loud.

And along those same lines, it just wouldn't be a protest without someone making the Obama-Osama comparison. Yes, we know. They sound a lot alike. Adolf and Rudolph sound a lot alike as well, but you don't hear folks comparing that little reindeer fellow to Hitler, now, do you?

Ahh. Go back to Kenya. Lovely. You're not doing a lot to add credibility to your cause, but you do make me laugh, so that's something. By the way, HE'S NOT FROM KENYA! Morons.

And here we have a little birther action combined with a little "In Living Color" action. Interesting combo to say the least.

Why bother with multiple signs when you can just cram it all onto one piece of poster board. The problem with it is that they're really only taking a stand against two of those things. They don't want the fascism or the socialism and they seem to think that the Obamacare sucks. Other than that, they're just sort of stating issues. Oh, how I only wish they had stated what "ALIAN CARE" was exactly and why it is illegal.

I've got feathers and a pitchfork. I also have torches and axe handles if you need some of those as well, sir.

And finally, we have these folks. The one, dressed like a priest (I think) is proclaiming that God hates taxes. I don't know why God would care about taxes. God doesn't pay taxes. But that's not really what I'm focused on here. I'm focused on what in the hell that is over to the right of that dude! It's like one of those guys from the cantina in Star Wars wearing some sort of mossy coat and trousers. It's odd and I have no idea what it has to do with tax protests. And I'm dying to know what brochure he's holding.

Sphere: Related Content