Senator Pryor pictured below:
Why do I keep writing and email Senator Pryor suggestions on how to cut our budget? I gave him hundreds of ideas about how to cut spending and as far as I can tell he has taken none of my suggestions. You can find some of my suggestions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and they all were emailed to him. In fact, I have written 13 posts pointing out reasons why I believe Senator Pryor’s re-election attempt will be unsuccessful. HERE I GO AGAIN WITH ANOTHER EMAIL I JUST SENT TO SENATOR PRYOR!!!
Dear Senator Pryor,
Why not pass the Balanced Budget amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.thedailyhatch.org . I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. (Actually there were over 160 emails with specific spending cut suggestions.) However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted although you did respond to me several times. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend. Today I actually have included a great article below from the Heritage Foundation concerning an area of our federal budget that needs to be cut down to size. The funny thing about the Sequester and the 2.4% of cuts in future increases is that President Obama set these up and then he acted like the sky was falling in as the cartoons indicate in the newspapers.
IF YOU TRULY WANT TO CUT THE BUDGET AND BALANCE THE BUDGET THEN SUBMIT THESE POTENTIAL BUDGET CUTS PRESENTED BELOW!!
___________
Published on Jul 24, 2013
Follow the day-to-day office life of a federal agency trying desperately to spend their way to a bigger budget.
________________________
Why does the federal government think up ways to spend money?
July 26, 2013 at 9:00 am
Newscom
Advocacy groups are pushing to include the State Energy Race to the Top Initiative Act of 2013 legislation as an amendment to the Shaheen–Portman efficiency bill. But the “race to the top” idea amounts to nothing more than a subsidy-filled race to the trough for companies that are hungry to gobble up taxpayer dollars.
Proposed by President Obama in his State of the Union speech and more recently in legislation introduced by Senators Mark Warner (D–VA) and Joe Manchin (D–WV), the race to the top is a $200 million grant program to promote energy efficiency that adds even more taxpayer money to existing federal and state efficiency subsidies and mandates.
States and qualifying entities would submit proposals to the Department of Energy (DOE) for efficiency upgrades such as building retrofits for public and private commercial buildings, schools, hospitals, and residential buildings as well as industrial efficiency, demand-side management, and more. The DOE would provide a first phase of funding to no more than 25 states and a second round of much larger grants to no more than six states based on the project proposal, geography, and likelihood of success.
If spending on efficiency increases competitiveness or saves businesses and manufacturers money, they should make those investments on their own. In fact, companies invest in innovative technologies that conserve energy all the time, because such investments do save money and make their products more competitive. They do not need the federal government to prod them with taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Energy efficiency per dollar of gross domestic product has improved dramatically over the past 60 years. Some might wrongly suggest that this was the result of efficiency standards, but technological improvements and consumer preference are the cause, and energy intensity has been in decline long before a national energy efficiency policy.
The race to the top program duplicates the many existing state and federal efficiency programs that already exist. It would provide another incentive for companies to build business models around government programs to collect taxpayer cash rather than competing in the marketplace. Government mandates, rebate programs, or spending initiatives to make businesses and homeowners more energy efficient take choices away from families and businesses and skew the rules of free enterprise.
We do not need a race to the top energy initiative funded by the government. Good ideas, competitive technologies, and profitable ventures will rise to the top without the taxpayers’ help
_______________
The Balanced Budget Amendment is the only thing I can think of that would force Washington to cut spending. We have only a handful of balanced budgets in the last 60 years, so obviously what we are doing is not working. We are passing along this debt to the next generation. YOUR APPROACH HAS BEEN TO REJECT THE BALANCED BUDGET “BECAUSE WE SHOULD CUT THE BUDGET OURSELF,” WELL THEN HERE IS YOUR CHANCE!!!! SUBMIT THESE CUTS!!!!
Thank you for this opportunity to share my ideas with you.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com www.thedailyhatch.org, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733
Related posts:
Lots of wasteful spending by federal government
I wish the federal government would go back to spending less than 5% of GDP like they did the first 150 years of our country’s history. We could cut down on a lot of wasteful spending if we did that. Morning Bell: The Governing Class and Us Mike Brownfield April 19, 2012 at 8:57 am […]
Posted in President Obama Edit Comments (0)
The Daily Hatch 