“As a Tax Preparer, the very first benefits I’d eliminate are refundable tax credits. You have no idea the amount of fraud that goes on there!”
Trust me…I believe you, and this is definitely something that needs to be looked at and–at the very least–heavily revised, or eliminated.
When I calculate my income taxes, I take pride in being able to substantiate every penny that I claim for charitable or other types of deductions, but I am aware that many people play fast and loose with the accuracy of their tax returns. While I would not welcome an audit, it would give me a lot of satisfaction to see an IRS auditor concede that my return is 100% honest and above-board.
Hmmm, grants for smart meters? These are so power can be turned off to things like air conditioners during periods of peak demand. I’m not necessarily against grants to push and achieve necessary infra-structure improvements, BUT we should be as concerned about the security of the grid as well as trying to save 4% energy use with them. AND we should not kid ourselves that these are to provide employment.
Grants is a whole 'nother subject area. It certainly can be used as an insidious way for a government to coerce changes to be made that maybe the general public would not necessarily put at a high priority. Minnesota last year contributed 40 billion more dollars to the feds than we received back just so some of these grants could be given out to other less fortunate states.
I’m not just chastising the feds, but Minnesota gives out grants for everything. The state collects the money, then parcels it back out and makes sure that the grantees follow the rules to get the money that they already paid in. Not the least of which is public health local grants to set up walking and biking activities and programs for the horrid smoking activities. The grantors collect all the money, hire staff, produce water bottles and key chains with slogans on, and pat themselves on the back for the fine work they are doing.
Government has used the grant process in lieu of the less popular empire building activities of more staff and more buildings. Not against it all but needs to be very focused and limited.
The local power company installed smart meters at my house for free and pays me every month that I keep them. Then they reduce power to my home during extreme high usage periods. They don’t stop it, just reduce it. I can’t cool my home to any temperature I want, but we never set it below 80 anyway. We don’t notice the reduced power. The power company is willing to do this because it puts off building more power plants. Why would the government provide grants for this when it makes good economic sense for the power company to do it on their own?
@Bing
I don’t know why you are taking about grant monies as not being a legitimate way of building infrastructure. There is no other way in many cases. The Govt. has NO infrastructure building apparatus for energy companies just like they have none for the interstate unless in a few instances they use the Army Corps. or local guard units. This is very seldom. Grant monies is one of the primary ways that infrastructure ( and other monies from other departments) monies is handed out.
It’s those power companies that are making power that also contract private companies that specialize in doing the work required that apply for the grants. Then through the private companies builds the line, installs meters and does what ever it has to comply with the plan they submitted to the govt. The govt. Physically does very little except to see that the corporations do what they have contracted to do in order to recoeve the grant. They have the expertise and the grant monies pays the workers, and buys the supplies for each specific plan. That’s why it helps the economy from the get go.
Some of the organization monies I have belong to have been doing this for years, to build roads, cut pollution and do other work that local economies and businesses could never do. And what were we coerced to do ? We were coerced not to use undocumrnted workers, buy supplies from local manufacturers and complete the job the way we had agreed to. Sure…they are control freaks.
That’s how it works. Private industry just doesn’t have enough funds to get these jobs done and they apply for grants to supply the survices to the largest number of customers. Now, people can complain about it NOW, but it’s been done this way for decades. With all due respect, the request for grants comes from the local, not the govt. And, it’s the project inspired direction that determines the goals. The govt. Restrictions are set up to see that the company that builds the project complies with the contract they themselves agreed to and also build the project in such a way that benefits the economy locally and in the US in general. If that’s coercion, it’s no different then GM telling a subcontractor they have to build a part in a way they agreed too.
Every bit of the social security surplus has been spent on other things. Excess SS income is used to buy short term SS bonds. That puts those funds in the general fund.
That's what I mean about "any CFO who ran the pension fund like the gov't runs SS would be imprisoned." Try "borrowing" pension funds to buy a new factory and see what happens to ya ;-)
By the way. I just read a story where a power company used unqualified workers to install natural gas lines. They are being sued by some of the other utilities because these unqualified workers they got on the cheap, broke lines and delivery systems of other utilities ( sewerage, water, etc.) Now, someone may think it’s all right to just let utility companies do what ever they wanted, but if you use govt. Funds from my tax dollar to build up your infrastructure, it should be done right to try and avoid messes like this. Otherwise, it not only cost more tax dollars to clean up, but can increase the charges for other delivery systems of other services we get and take for granted.
@jtsanders…
Maybe the power company installed the meters with govt. Grant money. That is often why they did it for free. That often happens. Some times, doing the right thing is too expensive initially even though it saves money for everyone in the long run. Some people are under the illusion that private business can always afford to invest in these expensive transition chnages. They often can’t on their own, but can through grants. Every town can get grants for better training for law enforcement too if they can’t do it on their own. They can some years get grants for new fire engines too. The citizens that live in poorer towns or get services from poorer small businesses like the idea of grants. That’s like every small town in America !
Some like to think under the illusion that private business can do anything on their own that we need done. It helps play into the false assumption that the central govt Is totally unnecessary. That’s fine…if you don’t mind speaking German the last 70 years.
Auch du lieber, meine freunde. The feds collect gas tax and excise taxes that go for roads and bridges. The grants for road construction are in the form of shared expenses with the states for approved projects. This money also goes for mass transit which is what I have a little problem with when our bridges are in such poor shape.
Minnesota and other states have a public utilities commission that regulates gas lines, power lines, construction, rates, etc. Don’t need the feds for that. Its part of the price paid for being granted a monopoly in particular markets.
The employment aspect is a red herring that if you think about it might agree. The $40 billion taken from the pockets of Minnesotans so that the feds could redistribute it, would otherwise still have been spent providing employment. Relaying it through DC and on to Alabama, Nevada, etc. doesn’t generate any more gross activity (and even less) than if they would have just left it in Minnesota. We could have built a few roads and bridges with that $40 billion, not to mention other activities such as schools.
The power goes to those who can collect the money and then send it back to others under their terms. It provides control and centralized power but does not generate any more economic activity. Econ 101, Dr. Thoreson.
^Yup. Feds collect money from the states, and turn around and play games like, “We’ll give you your money back…IF (and only if) you agree to the 55 MPH limit” (or 21 legal drinking age) (or 0.08% BAC).
Those aren’t ideological talking points…they ALL happened. ALL of those subjects involve areas that (per the Constitution) the federal gov’t has NO say-so…and the Feds play “dirty pool” to exert control over the States that the Founding Fathers did not intend for them to have!
And people wonder why I’m cynical about government. I wonder why they aren’t!
(And all the political examples given ARE automobile-related! There’s plenty more that aren’t…but I’m playing strictly by the books here.)
Our local board of supervisors just voted themselves a payraise(didnt ask the county residents) a write up in the local rag went on about how dedicated the supers were,why it even cost them money above their salary to participate in the locals meddling(I guarentee that some would have done it for nothing-so they could have had the thrill of the power and control(the county even pays for their health insurance)one of my old preachers(a Foxhole convert) said the people dont need supervision{as in supervisors-I agree}when asked why I didnt run for supervisor,I said I would have to quit my job.This county thinks the people work for the board of supervisors.not the other way around .They have done a good job of stifling economic development and wind energy in this county and they praise the various non salaried peoples that chair the useless drone commitees,looks like if they had their way,this county would be a gated community(too bad for them that the serfs already live here)
Anyway infrastructure is a big concern(just look at the Hampton Roads area and VA Beach) but its been proven again and again,build the roads and they will come,perhaps we need to address the problem of too much traffic-Kevin
Please, tell me you are making this stuff up… 55 mph speed mandates have been gone for decades and states have been free to raise them higher for many years. They have become unlimited as they have argued for through your elected reps. How much in the past do you want to live ??? 1800s, 1920s…stop me when you get there. Do you really get that interstate transport of goods services and power and information needs to be under the regulation of a central govt and not each individual states ? The cost of these services without would be then, astronomical.
My founding fathers actually wanted everyone in my country to experience life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not for a select few. Infrastructure spending to you then, should be just highways ? Might as well turn your light switch off…and learn to live in the dark if that’s how you think… You must think all power, water, information etc. sales and distribution stops at state lines… Have any of you guys stepped over the edge of your flat earth ? ;() When you (a state) have a big natural resource like a river and you want to sell power out of state, you ask for a federal grant to build a dam. That’s infrastructure. The interstate competition for power then drives down the cost of the electricity for all it services. This is how capitalism works…a cooperative effort.
@meanjoe75fan @Bing
You keep throwing out general references like it makes your statements fact. My references were specific. Show me some if you want your arguments to have some basis in fact. Otherwise my good friend(s) if we don’t, we are just throwing stuff off the wall and hoping something sticks.
It’s like me ending this request and sayin…ie; Ben Franklin. I gave you specific examples of how infrastructure has been used as grant monies for years in a publication that discribes it. Now show me a major interstate project that was done without Ferdeal grant monies and or regulation. Show me a very large in state utilities project…(the big dig for example or the dam I referenced) , that was not done with federal reg and or grant monies from infrastructure funding.
Btw, our founding fathers made up the idea of a central govt. that regulates activities accross state lines and activities that affect large populations. They MADE UP the idea of central GOVT. REGULATIONS. Blame them for the grants. i.e. Econ 101 Dr. Seuss.
Since the 30+ years I’ve been living NH…our state gov has tried on several occasions to fund a few highway projects without fed help. They felt the fed regulations were too restrictive. But in every case they tucked their tails between their legs and went running back to the feds for the funding. Highway funding is too costly for the states. And the highway in NH benefits people from many different states.
@MikeInNH
Exactly Mike. NH is a great place to live for a lot of reasons. One, is their independence. But , if you can’t offer your citizens comparable infrastructure to other states, they will move when their businesses and services suffer and prices go up for this deficiency. Improving infrastructure, even if it means taking money from daddy, is necessary. People are under this illusion that if they paid no federal taxes and kept all their monies in their state, they could afford to build and maintain their infrastructure. Sure they could…if some states like NH and Maine wanted to go back to dirt roads and still pay higher prices for gasoline. Then, a delivery charge, much higher then your tax, would be added. $5 a gallon sounds about right for a small state like Maine to repave it’s roads and still have to ferry their cars accross every major river. And, if the locals built the bridges, all the lawyers in the nation would move to Maine.
Nearly two thirds of all the revenue for tolls in Maine this last summer was from out of state sources. How long do you think our major industry, tourism, would last if the tolls in general were doubled and tripled if Maine and other states did not get federal aid for it’s infrastructure. The Kittery bridge would be replaced eventually by a fleet of sampans.
The interstate is a federal road. There are federal highways, state highways, county roads, and local roads. They’re all different and funded by different sources. Naturally the federal interstate system required federal funding. I had to pay for the road outside my house, and again to re-pave it a few years ago. Didn’t take any federal money for that.
You can’t be serious about wanting more projects like the “big dig”? Years of delays, millions and millions over budget, engineering issues, etc. Finally done but what a mess. Truly you don’t want to use that one as a high example for others to follow? Made the news all the way to Minnesota for the incompetence of it.
Again I’m not against federal sharing of expenses where it makes sense but like I said needs to be limited and well focused for a public good. The whole rural electrical program is a good example where it was necessary to bring electricity to many rural areas back in the 40’s and 50’s. But these were successful because of the hard work and dedication of the local REA organizations throughout the country.
You need to read some articles and references. Infrastructure funding does not occur just on highways under the primary responsibility of fed. but roads, county, town and even private roads are all eligible for infrastructure funding under the right conditions. A private or small town road road that aids a community but is also a prime commuting and supply route for a defense contractor or large numbers in general (public good) can get federal infrastructure funding.
If your road was a major cause of polution or a supply or transportation or commuting route for commuters or goods and services that was poorly maintained under the primary oversight of a town, you could be inline for federal aid…you have to ask and in order for you to recieve the funds you had to submit a plan to be approved and follow it. It obviously will only be approved if you can show it’s for the greater public good, and especially if it affects services to populations areas ( but doesn’t always have to directl) and can be helped no other way.
This is not intended to read as it is boring but it indicates how this program operates…this is from back in 1990. But, please read the preface, summary and introduction. These funds are a very important part of any infrastructure budget. You can see what infrastruture budget generally includes to help states in this CBO overview.
State and local govts. can seldom take care of all their infrastructure needs without help.
You made my point. There is far too much money sent back with grants for responsibilities that should be taken care of by local governments. If Minnesota had their $40 billion dollars back, there would be no need at all for the grant programs.
You can't be serious about wanting more projects like the "big dig"?
Two totally different arguments. First off the overruns in the big dig were because of extremely poor management and oversight by the PRIVATE companies that ran the project. Second - just because the big dig was mismanaged doesn’t mean that we should then stop funding of ALL highway projects. That’s just plain absurd.
There are federal highways, state highways, county roads, and local roads. They're all different and funded by different sources.
WRONG…Our small town in NH - we’ve received state AND FEDERAL funds to fix bridges (mainly from all the flooding our state had about 7 years ago). There are many state roads in NH (rt-3 for one) that has received fed money.
Today I saw unleaded regular gasoline for $3.85 here in Los Angeles, the lowest it has been for over 6 years. I have stocked up on fuel now, I have filled every vehicle I own and also have 50 gallons stored well away from my house in the back yard for long term storage. I use STP Multipurpose Motor Treatment for a fuel stabilizer, it works much better than Stabil or Seafoam.
