Eliminate Taxpayer Funding for NPR and PBS

I sent the following message to Representative Neugebauer:

As you know, spending bills and the killing of same originate in the House. That's you.

The firing of Juan Williams from NPR is a matter of considerable controversy in the news. However more importantly, it has brought to light a subsidy abuse.

Taxpayer funds are being used to subsidize radio station NPR and television station PBS. I am sure you are aware that there are a great many radio stations and television stations, such that there seems no justification for any taxpayer subsidization for either of these areas. I suggest that you take up the matter of eliminating taxpayer subsidies to these two communication centers.

While you may say that the amount of funding that goes to these two operations is rather small and insignificant, I say it's an important aspect of the whole program to reduce federal government expenditures. The innate amount of money may be small, but it is a reflection of mental attitude, which has gotten us into the precarious financial situation we are now in. If this is small and that is small, and we continue spending and spending, it becomes a habit which then leads to spending out of control. This has happened with both the federal government and with the public at large. It is past time to change the habit.

Federal Income Tax Increase

In his recent newsletter, Rep. Randy Neugebauer said that Congress is creating uncertainty with respect to taxes by leaving Washington without any action.

This is my response:

Randy,

I read your newsletter. I think you missed a major point.

The Democrats know exactly what they're doing. In taking no action before leaving for recess, there is an automatic federal tax increase, which is exactly what Democrats want. This is a very subtle way of sucking in the majority of people to think that Democrats have not raised taxes, when in fact they have by their inaction.

You also talk about uncertainty in federal income taxes. There is no uncertainty. It is certain that federal income taxes will go up at the end of the year.

How are you "pushing" to change this?

Mortgage Payment Giveaways

E-mail to Congress:

I heard on TV about the Administration's proposal of a $50,000 interest-free loan for people unemployed and unable to meet their home mortgage payments. I believe it is supposed to be for five years.

It sounds to me like another vote-buying technique of Obama and his Democratic-Socialist cohorts. I believe if I were unemployed and could not meet my mortgage payments, I would likely vote Democratic to be sure that this $50,000 "grant" goes through.

What is unemployment insurance for? You folks in Congress have at least once voted to extend the payment period. I thought that was supposed to tide people over until they could get jobs and/or or revise their financial positions by generally reducing expenses.

What happens at the end of five years when most of these people are unable to repay the $50,000 loan? Extend it for another five years? Since many of then would have then had five years of training on a $10,000 per year subsidy on their living expenses, they will certainly be unable to continue without the subsidy. Are you planning another $50,000 interest-free loan/grant?

It is my understanding that all government spending must be approved by the House and Senate. Do you and your associates plan to support this program by allocating funds? If you do, you may pick up a few socialist votes, but I know you will lose mine and probably quite a few others. Or perhaps, the House and Senate have may have already signed enough blank checks, such that the Administration doesn't even need your approval and additional funding. I'm not up on all the details of the financial maneuverings. I suppose you'll have to decide about that.

This is likely a good topic to concentrate on, as opposed to considering whether we should be celebrating a National Bulgarian day.