<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cut Non-Essential Spending First</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:29:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glen W.</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-104632</link>
		<dc:creator>Glen W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:20:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-104632</guid>
		<description>To reiterate, the totals included in the study reflect only new spending relative to the FY 2004-05 baseline &#8211; not total spending on the items. For instance, if spending on, say, More at Four increased from $10 million to $11 million, the new spending would be $1million. If the following year total spending grew to $12 million, that would be another $2 million in new spending (the $12 million compared to the baseline of $10 million). In total for those two years in this example, new spending would be $3 million.Additionally, new spending tallied in the study is not all-inclusive, but focused on non-essential appropriations. Focus is on creation and expansion of new &lt;a href=&quot;http://debtreliefcounselingus.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;programs&lt;/a&gt; and one-time, earmark spending. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To reiterate, the totals included in the study reflect only new spending relative to the FY 2004-05 baseline &ndash; not total spending on the items. For instance, if spending on, say, More at Four increased from $10 million to $11 million, the new spending would be $1million. If the following year total spending grew to $12 million, that would be another $2 million in new spending (the $12 million compared to the baseline of $10 million). In total for those two years in this example, new spending would be $3 million.Additionally, new spending tallied in the study is not all-inclusive, but focused on non-essential appropriations. Focus is on creation and expansion of new <a href="http://debtreliefcounselingus.com/" rel="nofollow">programs</a> and one-time, earmark spending.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: More Bailout Notes (And Some General Economics Ones) &#171; 36 Chambers - The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max!</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12737</link>
		<dc:creator>More Bailout Notes (And Some General Economics Ones) &#171; 36 Chambers - The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:34:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12737</guid>
		<description>[...] Heritage Foundation has a quick list of some places to cut federal spending in order to cut the deficit a bit.  I&#8217;m all for removing all of those entries&#8212;farm [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Heritage Foundation has a quick list of some places to cut federal spending in order to cut the deficit a bit.  I&#8217;m all for removing all of those entries&#8212;farm [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tprice52, Rome, NY</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12530</link>
		<dc:creator>tprice52, Rome, NY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12530</guid>
		<description>Convert present social agencies to private institutions.  That will get rid of bloated union members agencies with employees that you can&#039;t fire and double dippers. Government agencies are never under budget because they are mandated to spend everything authorized.. Privitize, Privitize, Privatize </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Convert present social agencies to private institutions.  That will get rid of bloated union members agencies with employees that you can&#039;t fire and double dippers. Government agencies are never under budget because they are mandated to spend everything authorized.. Privitize, Privitize, Privatize</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Sheahen, Hickor</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12526</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Sheahen, Hickor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12526</guid>
		<description>Well first let&#039;s take a look at these things and see if we can see a pattern, whether or not there&#8217;s much reason to add to such a wish list, and what to do about that. 
 
I have the added advantage of experience as a farmer&#8217;s son which helps make it obvious to both me and countless other Americans that &quot;farm subsidies&quot; are Socialist &#8220;dope&#8221;, pushed by government elitists like &#8220;drug-pushers&#8221; getting farmers &#8220;hooked&#8221; on such &#8220;dope&#8221;, which thus in effect buys the votes, money, and power which those government elitists want.  
 
Earmarks: Another name for &quot;buying votes&quot; which money and power-hungry politicians use to help fuel their &quot;gravey-train&quot; of votes, money, and government power.  
 
(Government) Overpayments: Not entirely unrelated to another government spending spree which happens near the end of each &quot;fiscal year&quot;, (as those of us how have been or are in government service can verify), known as &quot;We&#039;d better hurry up and spend all this extra money, or else we may not be able to get as much or more next year!&quot;  
 
Corporate welfare: Writing also as one of those who has been or is in business, and who doesn&#039;t allow anyone to &quot;spoon feed&quot; me information, the reality is that to Leftist/government elitists fond of &#8220;speaking out of both sides of their mouth&#8221;, like &#8220;man with forked tongue&#8221;, &#8220;Corporate welfare&#8221; is at once a favorite way for Leftists/government elitists to &#8220;buy votes&#8221;, and a favorite &#8220;issue&#8221; for them to demagogue and pander about as if they&#8217;re on a crusade against it. Do your own homework, and you will find that&#8217;s all true!  
 
By now we should see that all of the above listed things are parts of a Leftist/government elitist &quot;gravey-train&quot; of ever more votes, money, and power for government elitists, and ever less money, power, and freedom for we the people.  
 
Yes, many of us certainly could present more &quot;non-essential items&quot; to cut.  
 
However, as long as we let Leftist/government elitist politicians get into office and in control, that doesn&#039;t present much reason to continue what is thus made a purely academic &quot;wish list&quot;, and there&#039;s certainly no reason to expect Leftist/government elitists to stop such a &quot;gravey-train&quot; of ever more votes, money, and power for them at the expense of we the people.  
 
After 20 years of &#8220;Country Club Republican&#8221; fraternizing with Leftist/Socialists in Congress, with eight years of Comrade &#8220;Slick Willie&#8221; Clinton and his Comrades inserted, and the coming years under an even more Socialist/government elitist Obama and Congress, we certainly should see that turning any such &#8220;wish list&#8221; into a &#8220;done&#8221; list will require electing a President at least as Conservative as Ronald Reagan, if not more so, and a truly Conservative Congress, devoted to the Constitutional principle of limited government, and nothing else has or will get it done. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well first let&#039;s take a look at these things and see if we can see a pattern, whether or not there&rsquo;s much reason to add to such a wish list, and what to do about that.</p>
<p>I have the added advantage of experience as a farmer&rsquo;s son which helps make it obvious to both me and countless other Americans that &quot;farm subsidies&quot; are Socialist &ldquo;dope&rdquo;, pushed by government elitists like &ldquo;drug-pushers&rdquo; getting farmers &ldquo;hooked&rdquo; on such &ldquo;dope&rdquo;, which thus in effect buys the votes, money, and power which those government elitists want. </p>
<p>Earmarks: Another name for &quot;buying votes&quot; which money and power-hungry politicians use to help fuel their &quot;gravey-train&quot; of votes, money, and government power. </p>
<p>(Government) Overpayments: Not entirely unrelated to another government spending spree which happens near the end of each &quot;fiscal year&quot;, (as those of us how have been or are in government service can verify), known as &quot;We&#039;d better hurry up and spend all this extra money, or else we may not be able to get as much or more next year!&quot; </p>
<p>Corporate welfare: Writing also as one of those who has been or is in business, and who doesn&#039;t allow anyone to &quot;spoon feed&quot; me information, the reality is that to Leftist/government elitists fond of &ldquo;speaking out of both sides of their mouth&rdquo;, like &ldquo;man with forked tongue&rdquo;, &ldquo;Corporate welfare&rdquo; is at once a favorite way for Leftists/government elitists to &ldquo;buy votes&rdquo;, and a favorite &ldquo;issue&rdquo; for them to demagogue and pander about as if they&rsquo;re on a crusade against it. Do your own homework, and you will find that&rsquo;s all true! </p>
<p>By now we should see that all of the above listed things are parts of a Leftist/government elitist &quot;gravey-train&quot; of ever more votes, money, and power for government elitists, and ever less money, power, and freedom for we the people. </p>
<p>Yes, many of us certainly could present more &quot;non-essential items&quot; to cut. </p>
<p>However, as long as we let Leftist/government elitist politicians get into office and in control, that doesn&#039;t present much reason to continue what is thus made a purely academic &quot;wish list&quot;, and there&#039;s certainly no reason to expect Leftist/government elitists to stop such a &quot;gravey-train&quot; of ever more votes, money, and power for them at the expense of we the people. </p>
<p>After 20 years of &ldquo;Country Club Republican&rdquo; fraternizing with Leftist/Socialists in Congress, with eight years of Comrade &ldquo;Slick Willie&rdquo; Clinton and his Comrades inserted, and the coming years under an even more Socialist/government elitist Obama and Congress, we certainly should see that turning any such &ldquo;wish list&rdquo; into a &ldquo;done&rdquo; list will require electing a President at least as Conservative as Ronald Reagan, if not more so, and a truly Conservative Congress, devoted to the Constitutional principle of limited government, and nothing else has or will get it done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Therese, Reno</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12468</link>
		<dc:creator>Therese, Reno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12468</guid>
		<description>I thought having Christina Roner on Obama&#039;s economic team would be a plus.  She believes in less spending and govt., cut taxes, etc.  Is she on vacation? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought having Christina Roner on Obama&#039;s economic team would be a plus.  She believes in less spending and govt., cut taxes, etc.  Is she on vacation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Therese, Reno</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12466</link>
		<dc:creator>Therese, Reno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:45:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12466</guid>
		<description>I agree stop the foreign aid, entitlements, farm subsidies etc.  Also lets pressure the democrats for a 2-3 mo. tax holiday for everybody. I just heard Obama&#039;s speech on his stimulus plan which is scary as hell!!  He is using scare tactics to the American people to convince them that they need the govt. to bail them out.  Socialist here we come.  Doesn&#039;t anyone pay attention to history?  FDR, Carter?  The only hope we have is that the Republicans take a stand and stick together and do not endorse any stimulus package.  It didn&#039;t work with G. Bush it is not going to work with Obama except to cause more debt and unemployment. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree stop the foreign aid, entitlements, farm subsidies etc.  Also lets pressure the democrats for a 2-3 mo. tax holiday for everybody. I just heard Obama&#039;s speech on his stimulus plan which is scary as hell!!  He is using scare tactics to the American people to convince them that they need the govt. to bail them out.  Socialist here we come.  Doesn&#039;t anyone pay attention to history?  FDR, Carter?  The only hope we have is that the Republicans take a stand and stick together and do not endorse any stimulus package.  It didn&#039;t work with G. Bush it is not going to work with Obama except to cause more debt and unemployment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil, Boston</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12462</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil, Boston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:42:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12462</guid>
		<description>Does anyone know exactly how much our country spends on foreign aid? This is a great idea, we need to focus on the USA. An end of all foreign aid could really help us now.  
 
And what would happen if the USA told China: &quot;About those trillions and trillions of dollars we owe you, sorry we aren&#039;t going to pay you a single dollar&quot; 
 
Would this mean war? That&#039;s the only reason I could think of not doing it. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone know exactly how much our country spends on foreign aid? This is a great idea, we need to focus on the USA. An end of all foreign aid could really help us now. </p>
<p>And what would happen if the USA told China: &quot;About those trillions and trillions of dollars we owe you, sorry we aren&#039;t going to pay you a single dollar&quot;</p>
<p>Would this mean war? That&#039;s the only reason I could think of not doing it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TRB Pgh. Pa.</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12452</link>
		<dc:creator>TRB Pgh. Pa.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12452</guid>
		<description>How about we drop the anchor that is forign aid and pass a fair trade act that actually levels the playing field </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about we drop the anchor that is forign aid and pass a fair trade act that actually levels the playing field</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Ann, North Caro</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12451</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Ann, North Caro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:06:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12451</guid>
		<description>I would start with Congress&#039;s ability to vote themselves raises, then move on to their pensions &amp; perks. That would make a huge dent in the financial crisis. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would start with Congress&#039;s ability to vote themselves raises, then move on to their pensions &amp; perks. That would make a huge dent in the financial crisis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike, Rochester New</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12411</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike, Rochester New</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/2009/01/07/cut-non-essential-spending-first/#comment-12411</guid>
		<description>Close down the following Federal agencies:  HUD, Dept of Education, Let Freddie and Fannie go under (that alone will save hundreds of billions), make Medicaid means tested, make SS means tested, and of course my favorite agency to bury once and for all- the Rural Electrification Administration.  these acts should save $500B or more per year. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Close down the following Federal agencies:  HUD, Dept of Education, Let Freddie and Fannie go under (that alone will save hundreds of billions), make Medicaid means tested, make SS means tested, and of course my favorite agency to bury once and for all- the Rural Electrification Administration.  these acts should save $500B or more per year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

