Voters Remorse

I predicted that many folks were blindly voting for Obama based on his likeability rather than his agenda. Now, it seems, many who are getting a full whiff of the DNC agenda as evidenced by the massive spending qua stimulus bill are having second thoughts. Oh, that the media had done it's job in October....(Story linked in headline)

Excerpt:"Two weeks into the Obama presidency, we like his campaign better than his administration," the Observer said Wednesday. "While some of his appointments are outstanding, others were either badly botched or reflect a half-hearted commitment to the change principle central to his ballot box success."

Who Is Making Money On High Fuel Costs?

It would seem that Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag by trying to get Congress to pass a fuel tax holiday. While the margin of profit that oil companies make has been pretty consistent at around 8%. Granted that's better than some companies, but much less than say, Google, which had a 25% profit. To quote from CNN-which is not usually an apologist for big oil companies-

"...Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?..."

CNN Money April 29, 2008

So exactly which entities have the most to lose if gas taxes are cut? Not the oil companies, their taxes are paid before it hits the pump. But local taxing umbrellas such as counties, states and even the federal government have a great deal to lose if such a tax holiday were passed. The Obama camp is trying to rally union opposition by citing the possibility of losing construction jobs. But then again, is this real shrinkage of the domestic job market, or will it give construction companies the incentive to stop hiring people who are not here legally? And when it comes to tax dollars going into Washington D.C. , Texans are only getting about seventy five cents or so for every dollar we send. So where's the rest of the money? We could go into the scenario from "It's a Wonderful Life" where the function of the savings and loan is explained, but the simply matter is that the money Texans don't get back in the form of projects is political payola for things like ethanol support subsidies, pet projects and celebrity endorsed programs which due to their cost only help the already wealthy. In short, while there's a noticeable reluctance to address the issue, the federal government, state governments and local towns and cities are reaping a bountiful harvest of sales taxes that become exponentially higher when they are based on per dollar sales. Everyone wins, except the consumer. Maybe someone should read them the story about the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg before all of our gooses are cooked.

And It's Two, Three, Four, What Are You Paying For?

I came across this little website that outlines what the average family pays in taxes. Then it takes it to the next level and itemizes. I think you will be surprised at what we are shelling out on a per person basis for services that are wasteful or even unaccounted for. The site is linked in the title. Below is a tidbit.
"TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Jim Kessler, VP for Policy and Tess Stovall, Policy Advisor
RE: What You Paid For

If you wrote a check for more than $13,000, you would want to know exactly
what you were buying. As is it turns out, $13,000 is about what the typical working
age taxpayer paid to the federal government in 2007. That’s a lot of money for
anyone, but for a taxpayer earning about $64,000, that’s one-fifth of all earnings.
Yet nearly all taxpayers have absolutely no idea how that money is spent. At best,
they may see a pie chart which shows in broad categories how the federal
government spends its $2.9 trillion budget.

This document—essentially a receipt—shows exactly what the typical working
age taxpaying household gets for their money in dollars and cents. The question
taxpayers and policy makers should ask is “Are you satisfied?” Do you think
spending priorities should change or stay the same? Do you think you’re getting
what you and the country deserve for your payment?

What You Paid For
An Itemized Receipt for the Typical Taxpayer
The typical working age household (a household led by a person between the
ages of 25 and 59) earned approximately $63,960 and paid $13,112 in federal
income and payroll taxes in 2007.* Below is a sample of exactly what that $13,112
paid for. See our attached spreadsheet for far greater detail.
• Social Security: $ 2,662.94
• Interest Payment on National Debt: $ 1,085.29
• War in Iraq: $ 593.48
• War in Afghanistan: $ 159.82
• All other Defense: $ 2,008.01
• Medicare: $ 1,697.96
• Veterans Benefits and Health Care: $ 355.03

* The income figures are derived from a Third Way analysis of the March 2007 Current Population Survey of household finances for 2006 and adjusted slightly upward to incorporate flat, inflation adjusted 2007 income gains. The tax burden is based upon the “The Distribution of Tax Cuts: Updated Projection: 2006,” from the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute which shows that a filer with this income should expect to pay 20.5% of their income in federal income and payrolltaxes (not including the employer’s share)...."

"• Health care research (NIH): $ 132.70
• Aid to the public schools (No Child Left Behind): $ 107.55
• National Parks $ 12.25
• Roads and Bridges $ 77.15
• Renewable Energy Research $ 6.67
• International AIDS prevention $ 14.87
• The Space Program (NASA) $ 74.53
• Health Care of Low Income Families (Medicaid): $ 872.92
• Border Security Fencing $ .13
• Income Assistance for the Disabled (SSI): $ 164.95
• Agriculture Subsidies $ 98.80
• Environmental Protection (EPA) $ 34.50
• Heating Assistance for Low Income Families: $ 9.90
• School Lunch/Breakfast Program: $ 46.09
• FBI, DEA, and ATF: $ 41.46
• Pell Grants for Low Income College Students: $ 62.55
• The Post Office: $ 2.95
• Consumer Product Safety Commission: $ .29
• Members of Congress and Staff: $ 8.44
• The President and White House Staff: $ .18
• The IRS $ 48.53
• Pork Barrel Projects: $ 60.45
• CIA: $ ???.??+

+ If we told you; we’d have to kill you. All sources for program spending come from the agency
budgets submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 with the exception of the following: War in Iraq and Afghanistan spending comes from the Congressional Research Service;earmarks/pork projects comes from Citizens Against Government Waste. All figures relate to fiscal year 2007 spending.

Why do we use “working age households” for this analysis? Working age households—households headed by people between the age of 25–59—represent approximately two-thirds of the adult population. Many younger filers (teenagers and the like) skew the median income level lower and many file separately so that they can get a lower tax rate than their parents. Old filers, particularly seniors, get most of their money through benefit transfers like Social Security, or other sources like pensions andinvestments. This income is taxed very differently than work income.

Basic Budgeting for Political Candidates

With the bridge collapse in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the politicians have come out of the woodwork demanding new and bigger spending for infrastructure. The federal government sets standards which the states are supposed to monitor and maintain for a variety of public works from electrical grid, levees, water supply and roadways. While the bridge collapse is certainly a tragic and dramatic example of system failure, does pointing fingers and laying blame based on a political model help at all? There are those in our legislatures that want the federal government to basically seize control of every issue. Do we really want to have to petition Washington to have a street widened or turn lanes installed? I ask that because that is what many in Congress claim to want. In essence, this would take local bond issue improvement funding and revert it to federal control. If you want an example of what that is like, consider that the state of Texas, for all of its highways, bridges, dams and such only gets back around 70% of the money sent to Washington in the form of fuel taxes. With larger populations and related larger numbers of Congressional members, more populous states would get the lion's share of funding under a federally controlled system,leaving states like Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Arizona with minimal attention. That is virtually the system now in place for federally funded programs, the results being things like "The Bridge to Nowhere" and "The Big Dig" both programs earmarked by well connected Congressmen.

The problem is WHERE do we spend our money? If your family income is say, $2000 a month-your first needs are shelter,food, utilities, transportation,clothing. Beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets are in that frill area of "want" over "need". If your family has problems making determinations about what is necessary over what is a frill, then you probably have serious cash flow problems. Ramp that up to a federal level, and unless the government creates new and bigger taxes, there is only so much money to go around. Yet we have Congresspersons and lobbyists that place pet projects in the way of real and necessary improvements. And that can come from a whole plethora of sources. Dams and levees can be almost permanently delayed by lobbying from environmental groups. Educational funding can be diverted for free lunches and ESL programs over books and computers. Highway funding can be delayed years, even decades, over silly internal squabbling such as we are seeing on the Trinity River parkway fiasco. And the list goes on and on and one.

With finite resources, the federal government CANNOT pay for everything. Right now, voters are being hit with a number of campaign proposals such as National Health Care, Infrastructure Improvements to highways, dams, power plants and water resources, Educational reform that would cost billions to implement and programs that we can't even begin to detail here. I know different people have different needs,but when you look at these promises, please stop and ask yourself from which pocket of income the funding for such programs will come. It has to come from somewhere. And the last big wave of corporate taxation is what led to massive offshoring of critical industries. Perhaps, like many families out here, the federal government needs to live within its means and allow a free citizenry to define their own priorities and pay for their own needs rather than taxing everyone and giving us back only a fraction of services in kind.