Tax Expenditure Allowance

by Michael DeWeese

Permission is hereby given to reprint this article without permission according to the Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ . The article must be reprinted in its entirety including all links and be an exact copy of the original at: http://www.braindeadrepublican.com/Wordpress/economy/tax-expenditure-allowance/

The United States Congress seems to like to get voted into office and then spend the taxpayers money any way they see fit. Instead, the taxpayer should be sending a Tax Expenditure Allowance to congress directing them where each taxpayer wants their taxes they pay spent. A simple form to send in to Congress giving them an allowance to spend on each Department and Program according to your desires.

This is a paradigm shift. In the past, voters elected a legislator to represent them in congress to determine budgets and on what their taxes would be spent. It was to cumbersome with the technology available at the time this system was designed to run a large government any other way.

With today's technology, such outdated methods to determine what each individuals taxes need to be spent on is archaic. Each individual can represent themselves in their general desires for the expenditure of their taxes they pay. A form can be filled out and sent to the federal government to be processed that has an individuals desires for where they give an allowance to each government Department or Program.

The details of the expenditure can be determined by their elected representative since most taxpayers lack the time or desire to micro manage the government entities. Determining how many new aircraft should be built or which bridges should be repaired is a tedious chore and can be delegated to legislators and bureaucrats.

Providing an overall allowance for the government agencies and programs as determined by the taxpayer, will do more to guide the legislator in where the taxpayer wants their money spent. With this process, people determine where their money is spent, and if they want more of their share to go to a particular project and less to another, they can do that. It could even be conceivable that folks who really care about the funding of a particular project can pay extra taxes to be designated to fund their pet projects.

No longer will Legislators get into office and spend taxpayer money on their personal pet program or agency, but will have to spend it on what the taxpayer wants funded, and not spend it on projects of no worth to the taxpayer. Now the legislators will need to justify to the taxpayer the reasons they should put in an expenditure allowance for them to spend on programs.  Once again, the legislators will be working for the taxpayer, instead of the taxpayer working to fund the legislators frivolous wishes.

And legislators that don't support T.E.A. will do so because the people that vote for them, are people who pay no taxes and will be afraid they will not get any welfare from the ones that do pay taxes anymore.

Alexander Tyler - 17th century historian:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

From Barack Obama, August 28, 2008:

"the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it."

Demand change. You are the American people, bring change to Washington.

If you don't, more and more will be taken from you to pay for things that are frivolous and useless until you are taxed beyond your means. When America is taxed beyond her means.

John F. Kennedy understood the conundrum of high taxes. And that is where we will eventually go if we do not take a firm hand upon our employees in Congress and give them a strict allowance to spend where we want it spent. Legislators will simply continue to vote higher taxes, if not on income, then on consumption as a sales tax or a value added tax (vat). Let them know enough is enough. Tell them what you want your taxes spent on.

John F. Kennedy was at the Economic Club in New York in December of 1962.

He said:

"It is increasingly clear that...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

Another President understood more about the prospect of a government that looks after you than anyone. Letting the politicians take your money and spend it on what they think is good for you becomes truly frightening.

"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help."
Ronald Reagan

Any Departments or Programs that do not get enough of an allowance from the taxpayers get shut down. Maybe not immediately, perhaps a 10% reduction in funds per year maximum until they reach the taxpayers allowance level or are completely shutdown after 10 years.

Taxpayers can put their money where their ideals are. Want more money for education, tell congress to put a larger expenditure of your taxes into the Department of Education. Want more of your taxes to go for Police, Firefighters, give congress a bigger allowance towards the Department of Justice.

 There are 138,394,754 taxpayers (latest figures available are 2006) per year. Each taxpayer has an average tax share of $122,951.19 for 2009. It is time to take back control of your money.

Stop letting Congress put you and your children and your grandchildren into monstrous debt.

Stop letting the non productive vote in legislators to steal your families hard earned wealth and put your family into debt for generations to give them benefits they have not earned.

Stop letting your legislator tell you where they will be spending your money, fill out and send them the T.E.A. Form and tell them where you want your money spent.

Click here for a PDF, or OpenOffice copy of a T.E.A. form ( 5 pages ) to fill out and send to your Congressperson(s):

References and Links:

There are 31 Departments / Agencies / Programs that are funded by the 2009 Federal Budget.

There are 32 Departments / Agencies / Programs that are funded by the 2010 Federal Budget.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009.

The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2008. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
$644 billion - Social Security
$408 billion - Medicare
$224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion - Interest on National Debt
Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)
$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
$70.4 billion - United States Department of Health and Human Services
$59.2 billion - United States Department of Education
$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$38.5 billion - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
$38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security
$25.0 billion - United States Department of Energy
$20.8 billion - United States Department of Agriculture
$20.3 billion - United States Department of Justice
$17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.5 billion - United States Department of the Treasury
$11.5 billion - United States Department of Transportation
$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
$8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
$7.1 billion - United States Environmental Protection Agency
$6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
$6.3 billion - Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion - Legislative branch (United States Congress)
$4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers
$0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
$0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
$7.2 billion - Other agencies
$39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.

$75.8 billion - Supplemental and Emergency spending ($70 billion for Global War on Terror - and $5.8 billion for Gulf Coast Hurricane relief)

Along with this is a Debt. With projected receipts significantly less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately 407 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $10.2 trillion.

Details of the 2009 Federal Budget are at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf .

 More budget information at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/budget.html .

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (-17.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) - Social Security
$453 billion (+6.6%) - Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) - Medicaid
$0 billion (-100%) - Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (-100%) - Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%) - Potential disaster costs
$571 billion (-15.2%) - Other mandatory programs
$164 billion (+18.0%) - Interest on National Debt
Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+7.0%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) - Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (-1.7%) - Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) - Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) - Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) - Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) - Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (-0.4%) - Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) - Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (-6.3%) - Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) - Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) - Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) - Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) - National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (-3.8%) - Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) - National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) - Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) - Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (-14.3%) - General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) - Other Agencies
$105 billion - Other

More details at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf .

Detailed information can be found at http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html .

Congressional Budget Office Projections. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml

In HR 3200, 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)', there is a section that is called 'HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.'. This is section 404. There are several problems with this section that would allow for minor and major indoctrination efforts of unknown child raising methods. States could enact legislation that requires enrollment in the federal home visitations to qualify for access to State programs of any kind. The type of education is not specified. If you don't do as the "well-trained and competent staff" require, you could be penalized. The funding increases by $50 million yearly, allowing for the growth of the number of  'home visitation child education experts', possibly until every family has their very own indoctrination specialist.

HR 3200. section 404, is a provision to finance grants to states to "(ii) employ well-trained and competent staff, maintain high quality supervision," and the "purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children."

Source - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111wVbHWS:e989688:

States can apply for the grants so long as they meet the requirements, one of which is "the number, quality, and capacity of home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children in the State;" Once the states begin the programs, to renew their grants or to increase their program size, they will need to increase the number of families in the program. States can enact requirements in any other programs they have that would require enrollment in the home child rearing education to qualify for access to the other programs like food stamps, cash assistance, public housing, public schooling. This would keep enrollment in the 'voluntary' home child rearing education visit program growing so that the state can continue to apply for more and more of the grants and swell the numbers of 'experts' to visit homes.

The type of child rearing education these 'experts' will teach isn't specified. They could be teaching any number of methods. You may or may not agree with how they want you to raise your children. They can require how you punish a misbehaving child or how to reward a child who excels. They can indoctrinate your child with ideological points of view you do not agree with.

If you don't do as the "well-trained and competent staff" require, you could be penalized. Charges of child neglect could be brought if you do not agree with the methods or principles they are teaching. Then you have to try to defend your ability to parent in front of a judge. And if you fail to prove your case, your children are taken away by the state.

To start with, $50 million is available the first year, and an additional funding increases of $50 million yearly ($100 million second year, $150 million third year, on and on). This would  allow for the growth of the number of  'home visitation child education experts', possibly until every family has their very own indoctrination specialist. Imagine how many 'specialists' the program will have after 5 years and it is spending $250 million a year and growing and growing.

To keep those 'experts' employed and enough families being visited, the 'government option' for health care could one day require enrollment in 'home child rearing education visits'. This would be part of the long term strategy of the Progressives to control you and imbue your children into their ideology. One day, an Obamabot will be visiting you in your home to tell you how to raise your child, and teaching your child how to snitch on you, their parent if you don't do as the Obamabots require. Health Care Reform, a perfect program to sneak in some education indoctrination.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”