posted on November 2, 2006 02:20:44 PM new
I know many of us have been very concerned about how high our deficit had grown.
Now we see that it's been reduced by approx. 1/2 of what it was projected to be. That came from the gov. receiving more revenue that they expected....because of our good economy.
I would like voters to take THIS information under consideration IF they're hoping to have a democratically controlled congress...who they BELIEVE will reduce our spending.
They won't be reducing anything...they'll be spending MORE.
Again, they WANT, they WANT, they WANT.....and always with THEIR hands in OUR pockets to pay for it.
===============
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
November 02, 2006
(CNSNews.com) -
The Democratic Party's "New Direction for America" might attempt to steer government toward a sounder financial footing, but its course leads to $79.1 billion in new annual federal spending, according to a line-by-line analysis by a non-partisan taxpayers' group.
"Americans should take note that proposals containing many political promises are likely to contain many tax dollars as well," said Demian Brady, senior policy analyst for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), the research affiliate of the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit citizen group founded in 1969.
"Given that the average House Democrat's agenda in the last Congress would have boosted spending by $521 billion, the 'New Direction for America' may appear to be modest," Brady noted.
"Many taxpayers, however, are probably hoping that if Democrats take control of Congress, they will somehow find the fiscal responsibility on Capitol Hill that has been lost amongst slabs of pork-barrel spending and IOUs from unfunded program liabilities," he added.
In conducting his review, Brady tracked the fiscal impact of proposed legislation listed in "The New Direction for America Book," a 31-page document posted at the website of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who could become speaker of the chamber if Democrats make a net gain of 15 seats in the Nov. 7 midterm election.
"The New Direction for America advances the right priorities -- to make our nation safer and our economy fairer; to make health care and college more affordable; to energize America with energy independence; and to guarantee a dignified retirement for all Americans," the document states.
The initiatives listed are "the product of a united Democratic House Caucus working together with our Senate colleagues," the file states. "With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use common-sense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans.
"That is our promise to the American people," the document adds.
Brady's analysis found that health care represented the largest spending category at $28.8 billion, or 36 percent of the total agenda.
Within this category, Democrats proposed to "fix the Medicare prescription drug program," which would cost $29.5 billion annually.
However, the plan did call for spending cuts amounting to just over $1 billion to "end wasteful giveaways to drug companies."
Veterans' care was high on the list as well, at $19.8 billion. The initiative to launch a "G.I. Bill of Rights for the 21st Century" would provide increased pay, health care and other benefits for veterans and their families.
This program would increase outlays by $99 billion over five years and would be offset by increasing the top income tax rate.
At $16.2 billion, education spending represented approximately 20 percent of the total net agenda.
The Democratic plan called for increasing the maximum individual Pell Grant to $5,100 ($4.0 billion in total annual spending), recruit science and math teachers ($3.7 billion yearly), and reduce college loan interest rates ($7.4 billion annually), among other items.
Another proposal called for an "AmeriSave" account system that would establish a dollar-for-dollar federal match for the first $1,000 contributed to a personal retirement plan. This initiative would cost taxpayers roughly $7.5 billion each year.
Brady noted that several of the "cost unknown" items could significantly affect the net total spending increase the Democratic agenda seeks.
For example, the proposal to screen 100 percent of all inbound U.S. cargo will likely raise costs to the federal government, but specific estimates are not available.
Also criticizing the "New Direction" fiscal concepts on Wednesday was current House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who said in a news release that "while cutting the interest rate on student loans may sound warm and fuzzy, Americans themselves would be paying for this out of their own pockets in the amount of $60 billion over the next five years."
The Illinois Republican called that proposal "just another call for feel-good legislation" since the federal government, which "already pays a premium to lenders for charging lower interest rates, would be forced to dramatically increase its subsidies to lenders to compensate for the reduced rates."
Hastert also charged that a new Democratic majority in the chamber would allow President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire, which "would reverse the unparalleled growth and success of Republican economic policies."
Citing a Treasury Department analysis, he stated that the Democrats' inaction would reduce economic growth by about $93 billion a year.
"Apparently, Democrat Leader Pelosi never took Economics 101," Hastert added.
===========
So you want your tax rates increased again??? Vote for the dems. You want to pay MORE out of your own paychecks.....vote to put the dems in power in congress....they'll see to it that you have MUCH less to pay your heating and gasoline bills with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on November 3, 2006 12:52:55 PM new
This is typical.
The dems/liberals here and all over the US have done little but SCREAM about our deficit.
BLAME...blame...blame this administration for allowing spending to get out of control.
And here....we read just the BEGINNING of how MUCH MORE the dems/liberals plan to spend....IF elected....and not a peep out of ANY of those here who have had hissy fits about it for 6 years now
LOL LOL LOL How typical of them. It's OKAY when it's THEIR party that wants to RAISE our taxes to pay for what THEY want to spend it on....but it NEVER is okay in the reverse.....THEN....they whine and cry and blame, blame, blame.
I hope others notice this BEFORE placing their votes for ANY dem/liberal. They're nothing but HYPOCRITES. If they want to do it....it's okay. If we want to do it....they raise all shorts of hell.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on November 4, 2006 09:34:34 AM new
We are coming after ya Liar_k we are coming after all the GREEDY.
LIAR_K THE NEO-CON GREEDY LIAR GOES BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH ALL THE WAY HOME.
In just a couple days Americans can start taking their country back from the greedy NEO-Cons.
