Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Wisconsin Recall? Money Now...

I'm not sure why, but somehow I got on a "Bold Progressive" mailing list and I received an e-mail about a victory in Wisconsin. I looked at it and saw it was something against budget cuts in the school system. $425,000 had been raised for this campaign.
Beloved people of the United States of America, we NEED budget cuts, or we are TOAST. If we keep spending the way we are spending and don't turn things around there will be a collapse of our entire economy. The education of our children should NOT be the governments job and expense. That $425,000 could have been used towards the actual school system in Wisconsin-  instead of attacking the people that are trying to save our country from economic destruction. There is a SERIOUS problem.
One of the Senators for my state is downright scared at the numbers that have been disclosed to him. If we want our children to be educated, we can invest in the schools as we can. If we pull together we can get through. Public School is not bad, but it started with the COMMUNITY coming together to pay the town school teacher to teach their children. This is our responsibility, not the government's.
These 5 or 6 Republicans in Wisconsin fighting to keep America afloat are NOT saying education is not important. They are looking at the grave situation at hand and trying to make a better USA for our children.

Here is the article by Mick Mulvaney:

"Telling the Truth

What is Washington doing with our money?  This is one of the most basic – and important – questions that folks have asked me since I have been in Congress.  It’s also one of the most difficult to answer.
  Of course, we always hear a lot of quick answers:  “They’re wasting it!” or “They’re throwing it away on earmarks!” or “They’re giving it away to other countries.”  And to a certain extent, every one of those statements is true. 
But those explanations don’t come close to telling the whole story.  That’s because the federal government has gotten so big that it literally spends more money than any person can comprehend.
  Consider this, if you were to spend a million dollars every single day – from the birth of Christ until today – you still would not have spent one trillion dollars.  (In fact, you would still have almost $300 billion left over.)  This year, the federal government will spend about one trillion every 120 days. 

More discouragingly, the country has fourteen times that amount in national debt.  It’s an absolutely obscene amount of money.  But this still doesn’t explain what the government is doing with all the money.  It only explains how much money is being spent.
  To explain where all the money is going, it’s easier to at least start the conversation if you take the numbers down to something that makes more sense.  For example, if our nation was just one family, then, as a family, we made around $43,000 last year.  But we spent $69,000.  That means we had to put $26,000 on the credit card.  And the big problem with the credit card is this: its balance is $284,000.
  Using that example, if Washington were to save all the money that was wasted last year (wouldn’t that be nice!) out of next year’s budget, we would save about $1,300.  That’s nothing to turn your nose up at, but it’s a far cry from the $26,000 we need to save for a balanced budget.
  •   How about all the earmarks?  Suppose we were to eliminate all funding for earmarks – something else I completely agree with.  Some reports estimated that Congress spent $16.5 billion on earmarks last year.  That saves us $330 out of the family budget example.  Still a long, long way to go before we make up the $26,000 that we borrowed. 

As for all the money we give away to other countries: using our family budget example, eliminating all Foreign Aid would only save us about $920.

But my favorite example is the $35 million that Congress cut from our own budgets this year.  Yes, it was a 5% cut for us, and it is important to lead by example, but that $35 million represents less than one dollar out of the $26,000 we need to save.

So right now, after taking out all waste, earmarks, and foreign assistance, we have cut the amount we borrowed down from $26,000 to about $23,449.  As you can see, digging ourselves out of this spending hole will not be easy.
  Both parties like to talk about saving taxpayer dollars, but when it comes down to actually reducing what we’ve been borrowing, the “quick fixes” that are thrown around don’t even come close.  The fact is that we are past the point of just saying no to bad programs and wasteful spending.  At this point, we have to say no to some good programs too. In fact, we probably have to start saying no to everything, at least a little."

Father, give us wisdom in Jesus' name.


  1. I understand every position given here except your plan for education, which I admit surprises me: "If we want our children to be educated, we can invest in the schools as we can. If we pull together we can get through. Public School is not bad, but it started with the COMMUNITY coming together to pay the town school teacher to teach their children. This is our responsibility, not the government's."

    Please elaborate on why this "pay as you can, optional" system is better than our current one, which admittedly isn't perfect or even extremely effective. Under this system, what would happen if a family couldn't contribute at all, like say the 44 million (1 in 7) Americans who are living below the poverty line? Would they still have the opportunity to go to school even though they couldn't pay? Who would pay for their education? Also, would parents have the right to not educate their children at all, such as the numerous families I know who withhold their kids from school to babysit the younger ones? Could these parents do nothing for their children's education, such that they could not read or write their own names? (I actually know children like this). What are you parameters for these types of situations, and why are they better than what we have now?

    I'm anxious to hear :)

  2. It's Cam, by the way. I realized that the automatic Google option for posts signed me CL, which you wouldn't have guessed was me :).

    "The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency's name and location within the Executive Branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day."
    The Federal Government was not intended to be in charge of education. Of the $1.2 trillion spent on education, only 10.8% came from Federal (according to their website). The Federal Government DOES NOT have the money to do this.
    When I say pay as you can, I mean in your community in your state. The taxes we pay to our state I agree should partially go to the education of the children in our state and then the parents that can supplement and pay more in to do so at their choice. Which is what happens with fundraisers, those who can pay more do, and those who can't don't.
    So those children that I know personally that weren't able to contribute much and find people to donate to their school, still had their whole classes meet the goal because other students found people able to give from their community who had children and who didn't.
    Does that make sense?

  4. Got it. I didn't see the distinction between federal and state money, which I agree with. I just don't agree with no money :).

  5. Thanks for asking!!! Clarification is a good thing!!;)