That would make a lot more sense and save all the money the economy dumps into tax compliance. They should set up multiple tax rates based on number of dependents, eliminate deductions, collect the tax and do away with this end-of-the-year nonsense.
If keeping refining in the US, creating jobs through the petroleum sector, and providing for a secure energy infrastructure was really a goal of congress, they'd have made it economically feasible to build new refineries in this country. As it stands, there hasn't been a new one built since Jimmy Carter was president, and the majority of our refineries are along coastal areas where they're at risk due to hurricanes and other storms. It would hypocritical of me, as someone with a belief in a free market and an opponent of the current state of cronyism between DC and industry, to change my mind about unnecessary subsidies just because it allegedly saves me $10 at the pump every time I fill up. Politicians (most of them republican, to their discredit) pouring taxpayer funds into the pockets of extremely profitable industries is a senseless waste of funds.
No one would be "shortchanged" by repealing the Davis-Bacon act, and if anything the act "shortchanges" small, non-union companies by removing the competitive advantage they have over larger unionized companies. Are you suggesting that paying someone $10 an hour instead of $20 an hour to stand by the road and turn a sign is "shortchanging" them? If you remove the artificially inflated union wage scale from the picture those wages would be lower, but while the guy turning the sign (an entry-level, unskilled position) wouldn't make nearly as much, skilled equipment operators would still demand a higher salary, even if it isn't as much of a wage as the union scale. If people are willing to work for less so that they can compete and capture the job, they should be allowed to do so.
The excise tax funds being used to fund wasteful practices in the EAS would be better spent on maintained roads, inspected bridges, speed limits, highway patrolmen, and federal regulatory agencies...or do you not appreciate roads, cops, and the FDA?
All those wasteful expenditures that are less <$1 million add up. They're merely examples of a large number of programs that are a waste of federal funds. While eliminating one of these programs isn't going to fix the federal budget, eliminating large numbers of them would make an impact. Unfortunately, most of these types of programs are the result of earmarks/pork spending, and probably aren't going to go away any time soon without significant political pressure from voters.
At least we agree that the GSA trip to Las Vegas was over-the-top. I don't believe that's something that happens with regularity, but I do think that the federal government could save a lot of money...and provide a layer of redundancy/security in the event of catastrophe...if we started moving federal offices out of areas like DC/Northern VA where real estate is expensive and the cost of living/doing business is significantly higher. With modern telecom there's no reason why a department or bureau has to be in an expensive urban/suburban area. place. While it makes sense for Cabinet Secretaries and other important officials to remain in DC, having their subordinates elsewhere would provide a chain-of-command should anything (God forbid) happen in DC.
I don't think government is pointless and serves no purpose. I just think that we've let it grow wasteful and a bit ridiculous.
/endrant
Fantastique wrote:
There is bloat in government spending. Also, cutting spending alone will not solve our problems.
I win the thread.
I'm gonna sex you so hard for that.
Your Pal,
Jubber