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!!

Photo credit: Newscom

If sequestration spending cuts go into effect, President Obama claims that “[o]ur ability to teach our kids the skills they’ll need for the jobs of the future would be put at risk…70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teacher jobs would be put at risk, and funding for up to 7,200 special education teachers, aides, and staff could be cut.”

The Obama Administration incorrectly argues that any cuts to the education budget would come at the expense of teacher jobs or special needs funding. That is incorrect. No federal education program operated by the Department of Education directly funds teacher salaries—this is a state and local responsibility. Further, there are a multitude of ineffective and duplicative programs that could—and should—be cut, saving billions of dollars annually and restoring state and local education decision-making authority.

One program—Head Start— is not working. Taxpayers have spent more than $180 billion on this program since it began in 1965; it currently costs $8 billion a year. According to a recent evaluation by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), taxpayers’ return on that “investment” is nothing to applaud. This and previous studies found that Head Start:

• Had “little to no effect on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting outcomes” for participating children that reach the third grade;
• Failed to have an effect on 69 out of 71 socio-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes for participating four-year-olds; and
• Failed to have an effect on 66 of the 71 socio-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes for participating three-year-olds.

Fraud and abuse also taint the program. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted  undercover tests of the program’s registration process; in eight of the 15 tests, the GAO found staff that misrepresented information, such as family income, in order to enroll students.

While it’s time to begin phasing out Head Start, the least that policymakers should do, as Heritage Foundation expert Lindsey Burke writes, is “allow states to make their Head Start dollars portable, following children to a private preschool provider of choice.”

Head Start is just one federal education program that has failed the children it was created to help. The House Education and Workforce Committee reported on a laundry list of duplicative or ineffective education programs that could be cut, such as:

• Native Hawaiian Education Program, $34 million annually;
• Alaska Native Education Equity Program, $33 million annually;
• Foreign Language Assistance Program, $26.9 million annually; and
• High School Graduation Initiative (Dropout Prevention) Program, $50 million annually.

These are only four of the ineffective, wasteful, or redundant initiatives that could be cut; as Burke notes, there are 150 federal education programs. In fiscal year 2011, for example, the federal government spent $25 billion on over 80 grant programs that actively burdened school-level management with costly, time-consuming application and reporting requirements. In addition, onerous guidelines and regulations created by No Child Left Behind “increased state and local education agencies’ annual paperwork burden by 6.7 million hours, at a cost of $141 million” (emphasis added) in 2006 according to some estimates.

Washington has not spent federal taxpayer money judiciously on education. Real education reform would save billions of dollars, while improving children’s educational opportunities by empowering states and parents.

T. Elliot Gaiser and Jason Lloyd are currently members of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.

________

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:

I have put up lots of cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism,  Greece,  welfare state or on gun control.

President Obama has the media in his pocket!!!! Dan Mitchell has a great cartoon below.

You want an example? Take a look at this report:

 
In an interview Monday with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Michelle Obama lamented the tragic death of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton who was shot and killed in Chicago shortly after performing at the Presidential Inauguration. But a discrepancy was found between the interview that aired, and a longer web video of the first lady’s comments.

In the web clip, Mrs. Obama describes the shooting by saying ” she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need.” The mention of automatic weapons was edited out for the broadcast.

The network claims the edit was made due to time constraints. Police have not recovered the gun used in the attack. Police said they found no bullet casings, which are normally present after an automatic weapon is fired.

The edit has led some to claim that the network was covering up a mistake by the first lady. Megyn Kelly talked to radio host Lars Larson about the curious decision by the network.

“I’ve been in radio and TV for 38 years. I edit for time all the time. But you never take out the part of the soundbite that is relevant to the story that you’re covering, except in this case where they took it out, I believe, to protect the first lady from appearing to be ignorant on the subject,” said Larson.

Megyn said she understands having to edit because of time, but “it was interesting” that they would opt to take out Mrs. Obama’s main point about making sure kids don’t have access to guns.