Rep Cantor- You Cut

[GRAY]

I love it.

Week 1:

   

1. Eliminate the Presidential Election Fund, a federal program that provides matching funds to political candidates during Presidential primaries, certain third-party candidates, and funds for political conventions. In the 2008 Presidential election the candidates raised over $1.3 billion from individuals and PACs; do they really need to supplement that with taxpayer money?

2. Prohibiting taxpayer-subsidized union activities by prohibiting federal employees from being paid by the government for performing union functions.  Currently some federal employees spend up to 100% of their workweek, paid by taxpayers, doing work for their union. Federal employees unions collect millions in revenue each year and spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying; should they also be subsidized by the taxpayer for their official functions?
   
3. Terminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development program that provides individuals with $25,000 stipends for completing their doctoral dissertations. Recently taxpayers have financed research on media strategies for housing policy and the use of eminent domain for urban redevelopment. Why should families who are struggling to pay for their children’s college also be asked to fund stipends from the government for those who want to write their dissertation on certain government-preferred policies?
   
4. Terminate the new alternative welfare program, recently created to incentivize states to increase their welfare caseloads without requiring able-bodied adults to work, get job training, or otherwise prepare to move off of taxpayer assistance. Reforming the welfare program was one of the great achievements of the Republican Congress in the mid 1990s, saving taxpayers billions of dollars and ending the cycle of dependency on welfare.  This new program ushered in by Democrats is merely a backdoor way to undo those reforms.
   
5. Focus federal economic development assistance on areas of need. The Community Development Block Grant program currently funds a wide range of local economic development activities. While it is advertised as a way to help low-income communities, funds are also dispersed to communities with income well-above the national average. A recent study found that the community of Newton, Massachusetts, with a per capita income over twice the national average, was receiving $28 per person in CDBG funds. At the same time, other communities with income 25% below the national average were receiving $10 per person.

http://biggovernment.com/ecantor/2010/05/12/tired-of-big-government-spending-then-youcut-it/

What say you Govt SHIPE or Free market Champ?

[NCVol]

Well, that should get the deficit down from $1.4 to about 1.398 Trillion by targeting some "liberal" sounding expenditures.  Great! 

Now how about he target agriculture subsidies, or the defense contracts, costing us a trillion or so, or propose some changes to Medicare, or tell us what he'd do to bring back our manufacturing, or address energy needs other than drill baby drill.  As is this is typical right wing bullshiate - propose stuff that hits the other side and is meaningless in any kind of big picture.  All that's missing is another attack on ACORN and CRA, and an appeal for eliminating the "death" tax.  I suppose that's in week 2. 

Wake me up when a proposal affects the oligarchs in a bad way, including the banks.  I noticed there wasn't any mention of having the banks pay back any of the trillions in subsidies...

[GRAY]

whats wrong with "drill baby drill"?

[NCVol]

It's a stupid slogan with no meaning.  It ignores that we cannot and will never drill our way out of depending on our enemies for oil, that over time, oil must get more expensive to extract, tougher to locate, more risky to drill.  It assumes that we continue to subsidize the use of fossil fuels while the oil companies make literally more profit per quarter than any company at any time in history, and that we ignore alternatives and cede the development of alternatives to China and Europe, and with that the jobs that will inevitably come as alternatives advance in the near future.  In short, it's a stupid slogan backed by stone age thinking about energy and our energy future. 

Other than that, it's a great theory of how to address our energy needs!  And obviously, perfect for the Fox News crowd! 

[GRAY]

"we cannot and will never drill our way out of depending on our enemies for oil"

How do you know this to be true?

Please name he alternatives that are BETTER economically and otherwise, for the U.S.