The 100 Hour Plan

[Chicken Little]

Democrat's plans (that they weren't supposed to have):

Phased redeployment in Iraq

Middle Class Tax Cuts

Raise the Minimum Wage

Balance the Budget

Roll back big oil subsidies, enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, health care and prescription drug reform, lower college loan rates, new anti-corruption rules for Congress/lobbyists,

In a nutshell:  So sorry, Paris Hilton, Workaday Joe needs to fill his lunchpail and send the kids to college.  Oh, and you better start looking for something besides blood and oil to fill your Hummer.

[snopes]

I hope the Democrats are successful in many of these issues, if not all. The one thing I would've disagreed with you on CL (even just months ago) was the estate tax argument. However, after several interesting conversations with one of my liberal friends I saw things from a different perspective and have to say that I now lean more in favor of the estate tax.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

I hope the Democrats are successful in many of these issues, if not all. The one thing I would've disagreed with you on CL (even just months ago) was the estate tax argument. However, after several interesting conversations with one of my liberal friends I saw things from a different perspective and have to say that I now lean more in favor of the estate tax.

Estate tax, i.e the "death tax" is a tough one, I'll admit it, I've gone back and forth on it a bit myself.  The way I see it, rich people (the richest 2% for whom the estate tax applies) can afford to pay a little more rent for the freedoms they enjoy in this, the greatest country in the history of the world.

I was reading about a Libertarian out West who was calling the deficit a $30,000 "birth tax" on every new American.  At some point you have to find a balancing point--its a tough one.

[snopes]

^ I completely agree.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

I hope the Democrats are successful in many of these issues, if not all. The one thing I would've disagreed with you on CL (even just months ago) was the estate tax argument. However, after several interesting conversations with one of my liberal friends I saw things from a different perspective and have to say that I now lean more in favor of the estate tax.

I believe in a balanced budget, but I believe we need to rein in all wasteful spending possible before raising taxes.  In other words: "don't take any more of my money or that of my dead relatives [}:)] until you quit wasting the money you are already taking from me."  

Neil Boortz was talking about an annual $40 billion "black hole" in wasteful defense spending and over-charges that still go un-checked far beyond the necessities of the military in it's present state of deployment.

I see it often in my business world.  One example is government business incubation programs.  They basically give preferential treatment to newer minority or other disadvantaged businesses for certain construction and maintenance contracts.  I don't have a problem with minorities, nor minority-owned businesses, nor the government trying to help improve the condition of enterprising minorities.  Rather what I see is an over-charge to the taxpayer for services.

The way this works is you can start a business in, let's say, fire alarms or floor tile.  But you can also sign up under multiple SIC codes for goods and services you don't even specialize, nor are certified in, like refrigeration or seismographic services.  You can bid on other projects using sub-contractors even though you have no experience in whatever that particular field is, and mark up the price.  

I cannot be overly specific, but here's an idea of what I'm talking about:

Case in point- I was contacted last year about a major equipment overhaul project at a government facility.  The company who called me was one of these two-man "incubator" companies.  We are one of only three companies located in Oklahoma who are certified to do the sort of work required, and who do it on a regular basis.  Long story short, we wound up as the sub-contractor.  We provided all labor and materials on a project which lasted about five weeks.  The contractor provided what basically amounted to one job supervisor to be on site for five weeks.

They took our sub-contractor bid price and doubled it, all to provide one person to eat bolonga sandwiches and read the newspaper.

I'm not the least bit unhappy about what we were paid to do the job we made a fair profit of 15 to 20% which is about standard in my industry.  As a taxpayer though, it irks me that the government through preferential contract processes is in many cases paying 30% to 100% more for services than they should.  The project we did would have operated just fine without an additional supervisor and could have been completed for what we were paid for the work.

Even more interesting is I work for a woman-owned HUB zone business which could have had preferential treatment on a contract without paying someone else to double the price and provide one extra person on the job site.

This is not an isolated incident.  It is a perfect example though of one of many ways the government spends more than the private sector does for similar goods and services.

[Double A]

Democrats need to support Clean Elections because corruption in our government starts with the obscene amount of money spent on elections.