Rainy Days and Mondays (& Taxes)...

...always get me down. Considering what the Michigan legislature did Sunday night, rain on Monday is so appropriate...

Excerpts from msnbc.msn.com:

The Legislature agreed to raise Michigan's income tax rate from 3.9 percent to 4.35 percent and expand the 6 percent sales tax to some services. (Governor) Granholm signed both measures. Structural changes to state government — including the management of teacher and other public employee benefits — also are part of the package.

Raising the state's income tax to 4.35 percent will raise an additional $765 million for the state. The income tax bill is written so the rate will gradually drop back to 3.9 percent between 2011 and 2015.

Extending the sales tax to some services starting Dec. 1 will bring in an estimated $614 million for the 10 months remaining in the fiscal year at that point, or about $750 million annually,

The tax increases should erase most of a projected $1.75 billion deficit in Michigan's next budget. The final budget for the new fiscal year will include $440 million in spending cuts, including no inflationary funding increase for public universities and community colleges, Granholm said.

There are a number of problems that I see with this action by the Michigan government. First and foremost, the state is in a depression/recession. The unemployment rate is more than 7%, and this hike does nothing to attract businesses and people to the state. Instead, it encourages people and businesses to leave the state. Reduce the tax base, reduce the income to the state, and then what? Raise taxes again? Smooth move, morons...

The next problem is that the Legislature has been working on this new budget for over 7 months, and this is the best they could do? Why weren't cost cutting measures implemented from the last budget re-write? If the common person is expected to tighten their belt and not spend as much if they don't have the money, why can't the government?  Although, to be somewhat fair, there is supposed to be large cuts in government spending, but we will see if that will be the case.

Last is the statement that "The income tax bill is written so the rate will gradually drop back to 3.9 percent between 2011 and 2015." Right...how often are taxes reduced? And by that time, most of the bozos that voted in the increase will be gone, and the tax hike would be permanent because of the same fiscal irresponsibility.

In many respects, we do not hold our politicians (government) accountable for the expenditures that they make. Indeed, how many studies and reports on waste, mismanagement, and sheer stupidity are published, but how many are actually implemented? Not many, I would presume. If they were, government (both Federal and State) would not find themselves running on deficits.

Yep, time to get rid of the Redundancy Department of Redundancy...

Katrina +2 Years

This past week saw the two-year anniversary since Hurricane Katrina put New Orleans under water.  Of course, the news agencies were all over this, citing failure after failure of the government to address the needs of the storm victims.  And in some respects, they are right.

In other respects, what else would anyone expect from government?  Government, by and large, is a taker, not a giver.  Government is very quick to take a portion of your paycheck in taxes, but very slow in distributing funds (just the paperwork takes weeks to process).  If I remember correctly, there are still portions of Florida that are still in recovery mode from Hurricane Andrew from 1992.

Government failed the people of New Orleans.  First and foremost was the Mayor of New Orleans, who didn't order an evacuation of the city with the resources he had available to him (remember the infamous pictures of the drowned school buses?).  He had plenty of time to implement disaster plans, but for some reason, didn't.  Second was the Governor, who stuck her head in the sand and didn't call the National Guard to assist in evacuating the city, nor to provide relief efforts until days afterward the disaster.  Last was the Federal Government, but not for the delay with FEMA aid.

The fault there was that there were numerous studies done and billions of dollars allocated for the levies to be reinforced.  The levies were not reinforced as needed, but the funds diverted for other projects as deemed by various Federal politicians.  I lay the blame squarely on the Federal government in not making sure that the funds were spent where best needed.  (link here)

The other problem that I see is that the people of New Orleans (and other places in the United States) believe that the Government will take care of them, no matter what.  The sad reality is that Government will not take care of them, and it is not the responsibility of the Government to take care of the individual's needs.  We are being lead to believe to the contrary, but where in the Constitution does it state specifically that the Government is to take care of the individual?  It doesn't, but we have been lead down that path, and we have blindly followed.

While I'm not a fan of Rudy Giuliani, he made this statement:

Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself.

When I listen to some of the stories brought out this past week, some of them are truly heart-wrenching, others are not.  When I hear of people moaning and groaning that the Government isn't taking care of them and doing nothing to help improve their situation, my sympathy for that person hits a new low.  When I hear of people trying to improve their situation by taking matters into their own hands, and requesting assistance to finish up that last part of putting their lives back together, then they have my admiration.

People need to take responsibility for themselves, period.  Yes, there are those that need help to get back on their feet.  But I oppose the "cradle to grave" or as Right-minded Frank would say "womb to tomb" support that certain segments of our society feels that they are entitled to.  But I digress...

When I think of Government assisting the population, I always think of this quote:

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

Enough said...

I’m Pro-Choice…

…but not on the issue that you think.

On Tuesday, Rudy Giuliani proposed a unique health care plan that radically differs from the government managed system that the Democrats have touted. The Giuliani Plan, in essence, gives each family up to a $15,000 tax credit to buy health insurance, and anything left over from that credit would be rolled over for year to year medical expenses.

From an MSNBC Article:

Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama have proposed more detailed steps to deal with the 47 million Americans lacking health insurance. Edwards' plan has an individual mandate requiring all Americans to have coverage. Employers would have to share the cost of insuring workers or pay into a public program.

Edwards estimates that his plan would cost $90 billion to $120 billion per year and would be financed by repealing President Bush's tax cuts on those making more than $200,000 per year.

Obama's plan calls for the creation of a public program similar to the health plan offered to federal employees, and a National Health Insurance Exchange for consumers to shop among private plans. Employers would have to share the cost of insuring workers.

Obama estimates his plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion per year, paid for by letting Bush's tax cuts expire on those making more than $250,000 per year.

OK, let’s think about this for a second or two. The Democrat’s plan is funded by taxes and managed by the government. So that’s more money out of your pocket (higher taxes), and when have you last heard of anything managed by the government being a success? And if the Democrats plan becomes reality, do you really think that it will hold costs down, i.e., your tax bill?  Government is famous for spending your money.

Let’s also think of this too – at the present time, if a HMO screws up, denies or delays coverage for a medical procedure, and the person dies, their survivors can sue for damages & compensation. Do you think that you can sue the government for the same thing? I highly doubt that anyone would be successful in that endeavor.

So Giuliani’s plan is pretty attractive for more than a few reasons.  Here are a few more:

First of all, it puts the consumer (you) in the driver’s seat for selecting the health plan that best suits you. A government plan would have only a few choices, the private sector has hundreds.

Second, it gets the employer out of the health-care business. Take a look at the automotive sector for instance. Several thousand dollars from each American-built car go into paying for the health insurance for its employees and retirees. The financial burden is huge, and does not help the Ford, GM, and Chrysler products compete against those brands that do not have this burden. Removing those costs would help businesses become more competitive not only domestically, but internationally as well.

Third, it keeps the government out of your personal health-care decisions. Yes, there will be those that make poor decisions (there always are), but we need our citizens to stand up and take personal responsibility for themselves instead of relying upon government to do it for them. A quote from Giuliani from the same article states:

"Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself."

Next, this plan has the potential to keep the size of government down. Less government, less taxes (or at least that’s the theory). All one has to do is look at the bloated Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid agencies, and you know what I mean.

Last, this would not be funded by tax increases, but on money that you have already earned in your job. Wouldn’t it be nice to not have a bigger tax bill, and take home more of what you earn?  (Note:  This last is my interpretation of the plan.  It will be interesting to see how this does pan out.)

Whoever wins the next election seriously needs to look at this plan.  At first blush, this is a unique approach to the health care costs facing this country's employed and employers.  I believe it's better than the government becoming more of a "nanny-state" that the Democrats are promoting with their proposal.  I already know that the argument will be made that there will be those that make poor choices, and that will be true.  However, those people should be the exception, not the rule, and should not be the reason for dragging the rest of us down.

Yes, I'm pro-choice - for my health care options.  How about you?

The Declaration

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

National Health Care

National Health Care. Just the words make me think of HRB's foray into the health care industry when her husband was President. Now with the 2008 elections around the corner, this issue is being raised again as a campaign platform.

It doesn't matter what side of this issue you are on. Everyone has valid points for their side of the argument. My two questions about the matter are: Who is going to pay for it, and who is going to manage it?

The short answer for the first question is: You are. You will pay for it in higher taxes, direct and indirect. Your income tax will increase. The goods you buy will most likely have their increased cost of materials rolled into the price (companies pay taxes on the raw materials used to manufacture their product). And if possible, the sales tax on those goods could increase too.

The answer to the second question, if the politicians have their way, is the government. Again, nations that have a national health care system manage it with a governmental department.

A quick look into nations that have nationalized health care show that they do indeed pay higher taxes. Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden, France, and others have horrendously high percentages of their taxes going to their health care systems, but services and the health of the system itself is failing. An example is that France has 9.8% of its Gross National Product going to its health care system, and the system itself will be 70 Billion Euros in debt by the year 2020 (link here).

Does anyone else find this frightening? Look at the examples of current government-managed programs and you will understand my concern. Wasteful, redundant, mind-numbing bureaucracy will be the norm. Anyone who has dealt with a government agency and an insurance agency know that there is little difference between the two, but I would much rather deal with the insurance agency – I will get things accomplished much quicker.

What is also disconcerting is that the politicians supporting a national health care don't really have a good plan on how it will be funded, much less run efficiently. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are all in financial trouble. To add another government controlled bureaucracy is financially suicidal, and raising taxes will not be the solution. These bozos either don’t have a clue or don’t care how this policy will affect the country.

Last, is this really what we need to have? Hospitals, by law, are required to treat anyone without regard to their capability to pay. Yes, there are sad stories of people not being treated in time and dying. But look at the waiting lines for surgery in Canada and Great Britain, and one wonders if this would be an improvement over the current system. For some, yes, for others, it will not.

Quite frankly, if there is to be a nationalized health care system, I would not have it run by a government department. Rather, it should be run by a contracted non-profit private agency with an oversight from the Government Accounting Agency (GAO). Waste would be held to a minimum, and the contracted agency would need to show fiscal responsibility and high standards for patient care in order for the contract to be renewed. But then, that's me...

Michigan's 2% Service Tax

This past week, Governor Jennifer "Granola" Granholm, imported Canadian Democrat, announced that to get Michigan out of its budget deficit, a 2% tax on services would need to be imposed.  This is most likely to replace the small business tax that was removed this past year.

The problem is that this tax would still affect the small business owner.  Most small businesses provide services such as haircuts, snow removal, lawn care, and the like.  Since the economy is moving toward a "service-based" economy, this is particularly onerous.

One of the things about this whole affair that torques me off is that the State's finances were not disclosed until after the election.  Whether you are a Democrat or Republican is not the issue - we, the voters, were denied the information that might have helped up make a decision of whether or not our elected officials were effective or not.

The next thing that gets me going about this is the threat that if this doesn't pass the Legislature, state-funded services would be cut.  Road repair, police and fire services could be reduced.  What is this?  Blackmail?

This last really p****s me off!  Once again, the working stiff gets stiffed while our elected officials sit high, dry, and fat.  Here's my proposal to our governmental officials:

1. Go through each department and cut out the waste.  Non-essential services and duplicate departments such as the Redundancy Department of Redundancy should get the ax if not reduced.
2. Corruption must be uncovered and stopped. This costs taxpayers millions in falsely awarded contracts.  We all know this happens in various state construction jobs, so quit turning a blind eye to it.
3. Michigan is one of the few states that provides 4 years of benefits to Welfare recipients.  Most only provide 2 years.  Let's get with the program - all those 2-year folks are heading to our state, and Joe Taxpayer doesn't want to support them anymore.
4. Reduce your own healthcare benefits.  If you are truly representing the common man, then you should also feel some of his pain.  Look at what is happening to Ford, GM, and Chrysler employees, and maybe you'll understand.
5. When was the last time your pay was cut?  In many corporations, if things get bad, the belt gets tightened, and salaries are frozen or reduced.  And underperforming staff was cut (we'll get you in the next election...)

Maybe I'm being simplistic about all of this.  Maybe I'm not.  But I definitely called it when I stated that if the Democrats were (re-)elected, there would be new taxes.  And here in the State of Michigan, that's exactly what is going to happen.

Who Is Special?

Before going on with this post, I would like to assure all of the readers of this post that I am not a racist, a bigot, and nor do I believe that any one race is superior to another. People are people, and how they conduct themselves is a reflection upon themselves, not about the color of their skin. Whether or not they want to make an issue of skin color, I leave that to the well-established organizations that have a history of such actions & views. Any comments alluding to the contrary will be subject to the Blog Comment Policy posted at the right.

As many of you know, February is Black History Month. This means that my work is now plastered with placards, posters, and art celebrating the ethnicity of Americans of African descent. I personally do not have a problem with this – everyone should be able to relate to and celebrate their heritage.

Other months and weeks celebrate Hispanic, Asian, and Native American ethnicity, and also have their own posters, art, and whatnot showing the rich culture that these groups have. And yes, there is a Gay, Lesbian, and Trans-gendered display for that community that gets put up once a year. But there is nothing celebrating the White, Caucasian, or European stock that populate this country.

Why is it that only certain groups get their days in the sun while a certain group does not? Now while I admit to being of mixed-Irish decent, St. Patrick's Day just doesn't cut it in my humble opinion. One day of revelry (?) does not make up for a month of hoopla (and even then there are some accounts that the day has a negative connotation about the Irish, but I digress). But if I or others of my ethnic background make a fuss about this apparent inequality, we are promptly branded racist, hate-mongering bigots.

This is one of the reasons that I believe that diversity, as a whole and in practice, is a sham. If we truly want to celebrate a diverse culture, we would not single out one race or skin-color for omission nor raise one up above all others. And if one ethnic group points out the inequality, they shouldn’t be flamed for it.

From another angle on the same subject, I was listening to a local radio station, and there was a statement that Detroit was the most segregated city in the United States. There was a further announcement that there was going to be a symposium to discuss the issue (translation: problem). Is this really a problem or not?

I hate to state the obvious, but people of similar ethnic backgrounds tend to band together. There is this herding instinct, one that wants to have familiar or similar faces and backgrounds around us. Be honest with yourself – do you have more friends of a similar race to yourself, or from a different race? What is your real preference? Nothing to be ashamed of – that's just the way humans are.

But the problem is that there are people thinking that this is inherently wrong behavior. These pointy-headed social engineers (PHSE) believe that to think differently than their paradigm means that you are racist and a hate-monger. Sorry, Professor PHSE, that is a false assumption for your perception of perceived problem.

The fact of the matter is that you and I most likely have more friends of similar skin color than not. This doesn’t mean that we are racist or bigoted. In fact, I get along with just about everyone whether or not they are the same skin color as I am or not. But the PHSEs don’t like this, and lobbied for laws and regulations to force the issue.

I’m not talking about the civil rights acts that guarantee everyone a fair shot at jobs, housing, or education. Rather, the ones that I am thinking of are ones that state quotas (explicit or implicit) for the same subjects: jobs, housing, and education.

As an example, there is a regulation that states that each large corporation must award a certain percentage of business to minority-based or owned suppliers. To do otherwise would incur higher taxes or fines. These businesses know this, and typically charge higher rates for their services. Is this fair to a non-minority owned business?

Another example is Michigan’s Proposal 2 that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters last election. It stated in part:

Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by this proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

And the courts are now battling the will of the people stating that this is unconstitutional! In effect, the courts are arguing that some places in these institutions should be reserved, i.e., a quota, for people that may not otherwise qualify or have the opportunity to attend school or get a job. Excuse me? Shouldn’t the best qualified people be hired for the job or an educational spot instead of a person that isn’t? Here would be my argument to the court:

Suppose that a person who does not have the ability or education is hired for the job of designing and building a highway bridge. They are contracted merely because the contract that needed to be filled was reserved for a person of that ethnic or social background. Would you want to be the first person to drive over that bridge after it’s completed?

Because of this argument, I have problems with quotas wrapped in the guise of affirmative action. Everyone should have an equal bite at the apple, but the deciding factor should be on the person's ability & merit, not race, gender, or social standing. Unfortunately, what has happened is not fair and is patronizing to those people that the affirmative action programs are supposedly helping.

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post titled Equal Diversity. In it I wrote:

Government sponsored quotas & regulations will not change people’s attitudes toward diversity. All these will do is promote division, dissension, and resentment. I have noticed in recent years an increase of these attitudes. This is NOT what Martin Luther King had in mind.

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.

So whether it is an ethnic holiday, applying for a job or education, or anything else, we should be color-blind, and so should our government, education, and employment institutions. It’s either all or nothing as far as I’m concerned – I’m fed up with the double-standards and favoritism. How about you?

Government and Your Money

If anyone should need any more convincing that the government is not a very good manager of your money should read the below:

---

FEMA funds spent on divorce, sex change

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Houston divorce lawyer Mark Lipkin says he can't recall anyone paying for his services with a FEMA debit card, but congressional investigators say one of his clients did just that.

The $1,000 payment was just one example cited in an audit that concluded that up to $1.4 billion — perhaps as much as 16 percent of the billions of dollars in assistance expended after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita — was spent for bogus reasons.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency also was hoodwinked to pay for season football tickets, a tropical vacation and a sex change operation, the audit found. Prison inmates, a supposed victim who used a New Orleans cemetery for a home address and a person who spent 70 days at a Hawaiian hotel all were able to get taxpayer help, according to evidence that gives a new black eye to the nation's disaster relief agency.

"I do Katrina victims all the time," Lipkin, the divorce attorney, told The Associated Press. "I didn't know anybody did that with me. I don't think it's right, obviously."

Government Accountability Office officials were testifying before a House committee Wednesday on their findings.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee overseeing an investigation of post-hurricane aid, called the bogus spending "an assault on the American taxpayer."

"Prosecutors from the federal level down should be looking at prosecuting these crimes and putting the criminals who committed them in jail for a long time," he said.

To dramatize the problem, investigators provided lawmakers with a copy of a $2,358 U.S. Treasury check for rental assistance that an undercover agent received using a bogus address. The money was paid even after FEMA learned from its inspector that the undercover applicant did not live at the address.

FEMA spokesman Aaron Walker said Tuesday that the agency, already criticized for a poor response to Katrina, makes its highest priority during a disaster "to get help quickly to those in desperate need of our assistance."

"Even as we put victims first, we take very seriously our responsibility to be outstanding stewards of taxpayer dollars, and we are careful to make sure that funds are distributed appropriately," Walker said.

FEMA said it has identified more than 1,500 cases of potential fraud after Katrina and Rita and has referred those cases to the Homeland Security Department's inspector general. The agency said it has identified $16.8 million in improperly awarded disaster relief money and has started efforts to collect the money.

The GAO said it was 95 percent confident that improper and potentially fraudulent payments were much higher — between $600 million and $1.4 billion.

The investigative agency said it found people lodged in hotels often were paid twice, since FEMA gave them individual rental assistance and paid hotels directly. FEMA paid California hotels $8,000 to house one individual — the same person who received three rental assistance payments for both disasters.

In another instance, FEMA paid an individual $2,358 in rental assistance, while at the same time paying about $8,000 for the same person to stay 70 nights at more than $100 per night in a Hawaii hotel.

FEMA also could not establish that 750 debit cards worth $1.5 million even went to Katrina victims, the auditors said.

Among the items purchased with the cards:

• An all-inclusive, one-week Caribbean vacation in the Punta Cana resort in the Dominican Republic.
• Five season tickets to New Orleans Saints professional football games.
• Adult erotica products in Houston and "Girls Gone Wild" videos in Santa Monica, Calif.
• Dom Perignon champagne and other alcoholic beverages in San Antonio.

"Our forensic audit and investigative work showed that improper and potentially fraudulent payments occurred mainly because FEMA did not validate the identity of the registrant, the physical location of the damaged address, and ownership and occupancy of all registrants at the time of registration," GAO officials said.

FEMA paid millions of dollars to more than 1,000 registrants who used names and Social Security numbers belonging to state and federal prisoners for expedited housing assistance. The inmates were in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Florida.

FEMA made about $5.3 million in payments to registrants who provided a post office box as their damaged residence, including one who got $2,748 for listing an Alabama post office box as the damaged property.

The GAO told of an individual who used 13 different Social Security numbers — including the person's own — to receive $139,000 in payments on 13 separate registrations for aid. All the payments were sent to a single address.

---

Now after reading this, do you want to trust the government with your retirement and health?

U.S. Foreign Aid and United Nations Voting Records

I recently received an email that listed the amount that various countries received in foreign aid from the United States, and the voting records of these same countries in the UN on issues beneficial to the US. Deciding to look this information up, I found that this particular email was listed on a couple of sites to be bogus.

But since there is sometimes truth in a lie, I researched a little further and found some information that relates to this topic. The Heritage Foundation had this article in their Research Trade and Foreign Aid section. It's from 1998, but it does show that aid does not buy loyalty. Not wanting to stop there, I started looking into our official government accounts & websites. Here's what I found and links to them:

• FY 2005 International Affairs (Function 150) Budget Request
  
• Appropriations for FY2003: Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Updated - June 13, 2002
  
• U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2006 Request - Updated June 13, 2005
  
• And finally, a link to United Nations Voting Records at the Jewish Virtual Library, compiled with statistics from the US State Department.

Our government really should review who is receiving our tax dollars, and for those nations who spout off calling for the downfall of the United States and its citizens, yank that aid & put it back into the place where it would do the most good - the taxpayer's pockets!!

News Bytes 2

Saddam had WMDs after all. Read at Investors Business Daily. Hat tip to Anne at Backyard Conservative for finding this.

For yet another example of the biased media, look at CUG's Post on the latest CBS Poll.

What is your child learning in school? Michille Malkin has a report here, and I also heard the tape on the radio earlier today.

Yahoo! News has a report that an al-Qaida terrorist has been apprehended in Iraq and has confessed to committing 116 beheadings.

The Clarmont Institute has this analysis titled Islamic Chauvinism and the Mohammed Cartoons on what the now infamous Mohammed Cartoons really symbolize, and it's not pretty.

The National Review has this post on why the Dubai Ports World deal should be cancelled.

The BBC logs this report on the India Nuclear deal. I expect more debate on this than the Dubai Ports World deal.

Finally, for a chuckle on what dogs really think, and some interesting bumper sticker sayings, visit Really Funny Wednesday by Gunn Nutt.

News Bytes

News Bytes is a short, brief look at the events over the past week or so since I have been so busy.

Hamas Wins Election
Hamas was voted overwhelmingly by the Palestinian people as the leaders of their government. Since Isreal and the US recognise Hamas as a terrorist organization, it will be interesting to see how the two respective governments deal with this new government. It will be difficult at best, but all bets will be off if the Hamas-led government continues its policy of terrorism against Isreal.

Iran Nuclear Program
Iran has stated that they will continue on developing a nuclear program. With Iran's radical leadership spewing out hatred and threats toward Israel, I'm predicting that Israel will do the same thing as they did to Iraq's nuclear program in 1983. For those of you who do not remember, they raided Iraq's nuclear facility & blew it up.

Oprah Duped!
The queen of daytime has been hoodwinked by an author telling a falsified tale of self-redemption. While honesty is supposedly the best policy, the author has made millions on the book, Oprah has shown that she is human too (endearing her further with her fans), and there is some proof that the book has inspired some people to clean up themselves. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

Judge Overruled
The judge who ruled that a man who sexually abused a girl for 4 years has had his 60-day sentence overruled. The sentence was extended up to 10 years. The movement to remove Judge Cashman is continuing, to which I say, the sooner, the better. We can only hope that the victim of this crime receives all the help she needs to live a happy life.

Filibuster
Senator John Kerry is promising to filibuster Judge Alito's confirmation vote on Monday, even though there are enough votes to overrule Kerry's promised tirade Politics as usual, the Dems continue to implode, and does nothing constructive for the country.