Tag Archives: Welfare reform

Did Obama Gut Welfare Reform?

obamaHead

Last Thursday, the Obama Administration issued a memo that stated that it would issue waivers to states on work requirements for participation in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families act (TANF).

President Clinton signed “Welfare Reform” into law in 1996 as part of one of the most bi-partisan actions in recent government history. The reform replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with TANF as the nation’s welfare program. The lynch pin in TANF is the work requirement which requires recipients to be working or engaged in work-related activities in order to continue to receive welfare assistance from tax payers. President Obama’s memo would grant waivers to states so that the definition of work can be watered down.

What is the Welfare “Work Requirement”

According to a Department of Health and Human services website, the work requirement is as follows:

  • With few exceptions, recipients must work as soon as they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
  • To count toward a State’s work participation rate, single parents must participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours per week, or an average of 20 hours per week if they have a child under age six.  Two-parent families must participate in work activities for an average of 35 hours a week or, if they receive Federal child care assistance, 55 hours a week.
  • Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of a family’s benefits.
  • States cannot penalize single parents with a child under six for failing to meet work requirements if they cannot find adequate child care.
  • States must engage a certain percentage of all families and of two-parent families in work activities or face financial penalty.  These required State work participation rates are 50 percent overall and 90 percent for two-parent families; however, States can reduce the targets they must meet with a caseload reduction credit.  For every percentage point a State reduces its caseload below its FY 2005 level (without restricting eligibility), the credit reduces the States target  participation rate by one percentage point.

As it stands, recipients could be on welfare for up to two years without a job or satisfactory “work participation”. After the two year maximum delay, they would have to participate in a work-related activity to avoid a reduction or termination of the payout.  The activities that count towards work are as fair as can be expected and aren’t simply holding a job. As HHS’s website summarizes, satisfactory activities include:

Work Activities – Activities that count toward a State’s participation rates are (some restrictions may apply):

  • unsubsidized or subsidized employment
  • work experience
  • on-the-job training
  • job search and job readiness assistance – not to exceed 6 weeks in a 12-month period and no more than 4 consecutive weeks (but up to 12 weeks if a State meets certain conditions)
  • community service
  • vocational educational training – not to exceed 12 months
  • job skills training related to work
  • education directly related to employment
  • satisfactory secondary school attendance
  • providing child care services to individuals who are participating in community service.

The Memo that Guts Welfare Reform

Last week, the administration directed HHS to offer waivers that would allow states to redefine what constitutes work as was the case prior to 1996. Before TANF, states included things such as hula dancing and attendance of weight watchers programs as activities that would meet the requirements in order to receive welfare payouts.

The Fallout

Commonly referred to as an “80% issue”, Welfare Reform is incredibly popular as it appeals to Americans’ sense of fairness. Citizens pay taxes from their hard-earned income and would expect that anyone receiving a portion of those taxes does something productive to deserve the assistance. America does not want to pay people to go to dancing lessons or diet classes.

Mitt Romney’s campaign released an ad calling Obama’s memo an effort to “gut Welfare reform”. The former governor has also commented that he believes that is exactly what the administration’s recent actions has done. In response, the Obama administration hurriedly added a 20% work increase requirement that would force states to report a 20% rise in Welfare work participation in order to continue receiving their block grants from the federal government.

White House Spokesman Jay Carney came out to defend the administration’s actions against the Romney attacks citing the 20% work rule as proof that the administration isn’t gutting the work requirement. Saying that the claims are a “drastic distortion” of the facts, Carney did his level-best to turn Romney’s criticism of the President into a positive for the administration.

A train of Democrat pundits have come out slamming the Romney campaign claims in an effort to help the President escape a growing storm of voter discontent with Obama’s actions on welfare.

The Problem with the 20% Work Increase Requirement

By requiring states to increase Welfare work participation by 20% and removing the federal definition of what constitutes work, the administration is encouraging states to add non-work activities so they can hit the increased target. Getting 20% more recipients to perform activities will require states to get creative in order to receive their share of more than $16 Billion in federal subsidies. One can expect art classes, group therapy and workouts at the gym to be included before long.

The Legality of Obama’s actions

Section 1115 of  TANF does give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to grant waivers to states for requirements in the law. The hitch is that HHS may only waive requirements listed in section 1115, which the work requirement is not. The work requirement and definitions are listed in section 407 which means that waivers may not be granted under the section 1115 authority.  The administration contends that since the work reporting requirements are listed in 1115, that also gives authority over the section 407 work provision. These requirements were put in a separate section specifically to prevent this kind of maneuvering.

What this all means

By dictatorial edict, President Obama has illegally gutted President Clinton’s Welfare Reform. He hasn’t directly redefined the work requirements, but by granting the states waivers and demanding higher participation, he has guaranteed that states will game the system and individually weaken existing work requirements directly in contradiction to the intent of the law.

The “Personal Energy Subsidy” No One Talks About

Members of Congress have recently been embroiled in a battle to stop what many have termed “Big Oil Company Subsidies.” These government-sponsored subsidies come in many forms, such as corporate tax breaks for common expense tax write-offs, and for depletion of equipment costs. Keep in mind, that these same tax breaks are also given to every other manufacturer in America, not just Big Oil Companies. Randall Hoven outlines the situation precisely in an article titled About Those Oil Subsidies.

The Big Oil subsidy outcry is just another ploy by the American left to bash the very fossil fuel that has been the main producer of affordable energy in America ever since the invention of the various versions of electricity generators and the subsequent evolution of the energy industry. As with any production company, the free market energy system is based on competition-driven cost controls, where affordability is job one. Allow big government to completely control the energy industry and the results will be higher prices for everyone who can afford to pay, while also using it as a tool for stealth wealth redistribution and vote-buying to stay in power. Now that the big government myth about the big oil companies not paying their fair share has been busted wide open, and some of the reasons behind that power grab have been theorized, let’s take a look at one of the biggest energy subsidies ever handed out by the U.S. Government. Personal, welfare-dependence-driven energy subsidies that cost U.S taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

In a democratic society, fairness, and equality are supposed to be the cornerstone of the system. When certain groups or sectors of society are given preference over another one by a government through the usage of tax dollars, this becomes a blatant example of taxation without representation. ( of ALL people not just some of them) Other words that may be used to describe this scenario may include Fascism, tyranny, socialism, and political oppression.  So how can big government manipulators explain why one sector of American society has to pay for their utility usage, while another very large sector receives a personal energy subsidy from the U.S. Government that the rest of society is made to pay for?

While the oil companies “subsidies,” which are in fact tax breaks, have been put at around $4 billion dollars a year, how much do the personal energy subsidies cost the taxpayer each year?   All states have their own personal energy subsidy programs, which are at least partly funded by federal tax dollars. The website Welfare Info is a good place to explore the current welfare system, and just what government “subsidies” the career welfare class receives.

[Note: There is a big difference between an American tax-paying, energy producing company getting legal tax breaks (unjustly termed “subsidies” by the leftists and enviro-terrorists) and a non-producing, non-taxpaying career welfare sector receiving personal energy subsidies to pay their utility bills at the expense of the working class in America.]

From the above welfare info site, the following personal energy subsidies are outlined as follows: (emphasis added)

Another of the welfare programs is the energy or utility assistance program which is intended to help those who cannot afford to pay for basic utility needs, such as heat, electricity and/or gas and water. Like the child support program, it will supplement part of or provide 100% of the monthly utility costs.

Although the state by state personal energy subsidy programs are unique, they all contain on commonality: One sector of American society is being made to pay for another sector’s energy bills through government programs, many of them consisting of utility companies forming “partnership programs” with state and local governments. So who qualifies for  these taxpayer-funded personal energy subsidies? Can a non-U.S. citizen have their utility bill paid by U.S. taxpayers, or receive other welfare payments ?

Again from Welfare Info: (emphasis added) “You must be a citizen of the United States or a qualified non-citizen legal resident, (restrictions apply).” So, not only are U.S. taxpayers being made to subsidize career welfare people’s personal energy bills, they are also being made to subsidize what amounts to payments to criminal illegal aliens who broke the law while entering the United States.

Again, how much do these personal energy subsidies cost the U.S. taxpayer?  The fact is, that the big government bureaucracy now has so many personal energy subsidy programs that it is all but impossible to put a total cost to the taxpayers on it, which appears to be have done by design over decades of nanny-state planning and dependency program creation. Utibility Bill Assistance  has a complete rundown of state by state personal energy subsidy programs, along with this explanation about another pair of federal personal energy subsidy programs:

There is also a federal program to provide utility bill assistance. The National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association is a primary educational & policy organization for the state and other organizations of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is often referred to as LIHEAP. LIHEAP is a federal government program that provides grants to states to help struggling with assistance on their their electric, heating and cooling utility bills.

In addition to LIHEAP, another program available is the weatherization program, which over 5 million Americans have taking advantage of, and which can save over $300 per year in utility bill costs. ( several spelling corrections made)

When discussing taxpayer-funded “subsidies” and entitlement programs, the Liberal nanny-state worshipers have proven incapable of seperating retired, career-taxpaying Senior citizens receiving SSI payments ( and in some cases personal energy subsidies) from the non-producing, non-taxpaying career welfare sector of society. This is done to obscure the facts that tax dollars have been used to create a welfare dependency in America in exchange for the welfare class vote, which is the base of today’s Liberal Democratic party. Liberal political operatives disgustingly disrespect working-class Seniors by lumping them in with the non-producing welfare class, in an attempt to falsely paint themselves as champions of the poor.

In summary, should America end all energy subsidies, as Democrats have been demanding in Congress recently? That would have to include ending the above-explained personal energy subsidies, along with the Democrat-sponsored green energy fraud and power-mongering usage of taxpayer dollars to spread misinformation designed to keep them in power by enriching their crony-capitalists and tax dollar thieves as was seen in the Solyndra scandal.  To end all energy subsidies would in fact crush the base of today’s fake Democrats, their environmental green energy fear-mongering, and their welfare-dependent vote begging fraud they have hoisted upon the American people under the guise of “helping them.”

Footnote: While several personal energy subsidy programs do indeed help deserving people cope with today’s skyrocketing energy prices, as Barack Obama promised America during his 2008 election campaign, the creation of the welfare class dependency in America has deteriorated family values, work ethics and the very foundation of American exceptional-ism, personal responsibility and the idea of working for what you want out of life. For a very serious look at some of the results of this systemic destruction of American values, please see The Ugly truth of America’s Welfare Class.

 

 

 

 

 

Newt Gingrich's "Growth" Plan: It's About Welfare

I think it’s about time we take a good look at Newt Gingrich’s plan to reform welfare entitlements through “promoting growth and innovation”, detailed in this 48-page white paper.

First and foremost: Gingrich (or his writers) use very idyllic language which sounds very plausible. It’s the same sort of language Gingrich employs in debates with great success. I ask the reader to ignore it, and focus only on the particulars of his plan. In other words, I want you to be Joe Friday for the next several minutes.

Second, the reader will notice something which is almost laughable: The white paper uses the words “growth” and “innovation” dozens of times in 48 pages, but gives no details about how such “growth and innovation” would occur. It’s a meaningless catchphrase, like “Hope and Change”.

Third, Newt Gingrich firmly cements his opposition to cuts in government spending in the introduction:

The first path is the “fantasy” option: Pretend that everything is working just fine, and fundamental change is unnecessary (…) The second path is the “Austerity” option: Conceding that we will not become as prosperous and secure as we once thought we would, so we should be prepared to settle for less (…) The third path is what this paper will address: Securing Americans’ retirement, expanding world-class healthcare for everyone, and lifting millions of Americans out of poverty through growth and innovation.

(Emphasis mine)

To review: According to Gingrich, budget-cutting (otherwise known as “austerity”) is a defeatist attitude; and one of his goals is “expanding healthcare for everyone”. Note again that Newt camouflages his intentions by mixing his ideas with the language of fiscal conservatism.

The white paper is organized into three “Steps”, which I will also use to analyze the proposal.

Step 1: Social Security Personal Accounts. Gingrich is not alone in championing the Chilean model for Social Security reform, already implemented in part of Texas- in fact, every Republican candidate except Mitt Romney is championing exactly this reform. Newt does, however, provide a fascinating history of the Chilean system, and I’m highly impressed by the thoroughness and accuracy of this section of the white paper.

Step 2: Fundamentally Reforming The Welfare Empire. On welfare, we encounter some problems. Gingrich provides excellent and indisputable background material about the nature of the “welfare trap”, and some history about his much-touted welfare reforms of 1996. It’s fortuitous that I had decided this past weekend to write a four-part series about taxation, and had decided to include a discussion of the Negative Income Tax Credit, as it’s directly relevant to this discussion.

There is one fact about Gingrich’s 1996 reforms which goes underreported: The reforms, which has been claimed to have resulted in a 50% reduction in welfare recipients, had no such effect.

Backstory: Prior to 1996, the federal government operated a program called “Aid to Families With Dependent Children” (AFDC), which paid out benefits to low-income persons with minor children. This program existed in addition to food stamps, housing assistance, heating assistance, and a number of other grants.

Gingrich’s reform restructured AFDC into a new program called “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families”
(TANF), which still exists today. The key component of TANF was a two-year limit on benefits for the parent (not the child[ren]). This much is already known by most of us on the right.

What isn’t commonly known is that the TANF Act also eased the procedures for certifying people with disabilities. As the number of “welfare recipients” shrank, the number of “disabled” persons grew exponentially.

Stated another way: The bulk of the people removed from the welfare system in 1996 were merely reabsorbed into the federal disability system, which is part of the Social Security Administration. Gingrich’s claims of success, and the figures he presents to prove this success, don’t reflect this transition from welfare to pretended disability.

Among Gingrich’s assertions:

As a result, total federal and state spending in constant dollars dropped 31% between 1995 (under the AFDC program), and 2006 (under TANF), and down by more than half of what it would have been under prior trends.

This figure doesn’t reflect a painful fact: State and Federal funding for other assistance programs intended for legitimately disabled people, such as funding for group homes for the mentally and physically handicapped, was diverted to pay for the rash of new disability checks being issued.

This highlights a basic problem with the welfare system: Cash benefits are prone to fraud. I discuss this problem in greater detail in my Negative Income Tax Credit article (linked above).

While the build-up of this topic in the white paper is extensive, the solution part of this section is pretty brief:

1) Reduce assistance to working families to include only the minimum wage, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child Tax Credit.

This promotes exactly the problem Newt’s 1996 reform was intended to abolish: It provides incentives to have children one can’t afford. EITC and CTC are both based on the number of children one has. People without children would be shut out of the safety net, while people in the net would recieve more money with each new child.

2) Transform unemployment into a job training program.

As I illustrated in my analysis of Mitt Romney’s 59-point plan:

Government retraining programs put very few people back to work. They are a perfect example of a feel-good program- a waste of money which “feels” productive but really isn’t.

To illustrate why, consider this hypothetical: You are an employer looking to hire a mechanic. You have two candidates, one with 10 years’ experience as a mechanic, and another who just recently graduated from trade school and has never held a job as a mechanic. Which candidate do you hire? Obviously, you would hire the more experienced applicant.

This is a fatal flaw of retraining programs, which cannot be resolved by any amount of “restructuring”.

3) Block-grant federal welfare funds to the states.

This is a relatively sound idea, assuming one particular: States aren’t required to give excess funds back to the federal government, or spend the funds exclusively on welfare. If states are required to give back money not disbursed through welfare programs, then there is no incentive for a state to not spend the money by enlarging its welfare programs.

In other words, if the money must be spent only on welfare or given back, then governors will naturally splurge on their constituents by expanding their welfare programs- and in the process, make more new entitlement promises which can’t be sustained long-term. On the other hand, if states may devote excess welfare funds to other programs, then the states have an incentive to spend federal welfare dollars more wisely.

Newt’s white paper doesn’t address this issue.

4) Provide federal incentives for welfare recipients to establish two-parent households.

I have only one comment to make on this point: This is being proposed by the guy who called Paul Ryan a “right-wing social engineer” for advocating Medicare reform. This constitutes monumental hypocrisy on Gingrich’s part.

Note something conspicuously absent from these points: Newt makes no mention of reforming the fraud-prone disability system he helped to create. In other words, leaving the disability hole open would nullify most of these reforms via the same mechanism which nullified his original welfare reform concept in 1996.

Step 3: Healthcare Reform: Obamacare versus Patient Power.

As I detailed in this article, Newt Gingrich was- until only six months ago- a long time, ardent supporter of government-run medicine. He championed the individual mandate a decade before Mitt Romney did, and he helped to craft Medicare Part D.

In reading the first few pages of this section of the white paper, you’d almost believe Gingrich really has changed his mind in the short span of six months. He gives an excellent argument against Obamacare and socialized medicine, and describes the “Third-Party Payment Problem”, long-recognized by fiscal think tanks as one of the major factors driving up the cost of health care.

He even references Paul Ryan’s reforms- precisely the same reforms Gingrich called “right-wing social engineering” only six months ago (see above).

Gingrich’s solution to the cost of health care is Health Savings Accounts combined with high-deductible insurance policies- a stock-standard, free-market approach to reducing medical costs. As with the Chilean model, this is another reform being championed by every other GOP Presidential candidate except Mitt Romney.

He extends this concept to include HSA/high-deductible account for Medicaid recipients- something already done in Indiana by Governor Mitch Daniels with the “Healthy Indiana Plan”. Gingrich borrows Daniels’ program, but gives him no credit whatsoever! This is just plain despicable.

In sum: Gingrich’s plan employs a worthless catchphrase to inspire a message of “hope and change”; he establishes his intent to avoid spending cuts and his disdain of those of us who champion them; his good ideas are commonly-accepted ideas borrowed from other venues (some are plagiarized with no credit given- for shame, Professor!); his welfare plan merely perpetuates a problem he created; and, as expected, the paper distorts or ignores substantive portions of Newt’s record.

Stated differently: It’s more proof of Newt’s slick salesmanship.

Rejecting FairTax Part Four: The Negative Income Tax Credit

In Part One, I’ll cover the dangers of taxing consumption as a major source of government revenue, both to the individual and to the economy.

Part Two will cover the little-known problems in the FairTax proposal- the “fine print” FairTax advocates won’t tell you about (or don’t know themselves); I’ll also refute some of the inconsistencies and rhetoric used by FairTax advocates.

Part Three will introduce the reader to the benefits of flat income taxation- why it’s superior to consumption tax, and the economic benefits of flattening the tax code.

Part Four will introduce the reader to the Negative Income Tax Credit- an ideal solution to the the problems of our massive welfare state, which can only be implemented in conjunction with an income tax system.

Part Four: The Negative Income Tax Credit

There is no doubt that our public welfare system is badly broken and in need of serious overhaul. It is far too expensive, far too lax in preventing and detecting fraud, and far too generous.

Before we can begin to address the problems with the system, we must first accurately define the three major problems with the current grant-based welfare system:

1) Those not familiar with the welfare system tend to classify welfare recipients in two groups: Those who “need it”, and those who “don’t”. This overly-simplistic concept ignores one of the major problems with our welfare system: The poverty trap.

Many government programs intended to assist working persons with insufficient incomes are established with static income limits. If a person’s income rises exceeds the limit even slightly, most or all of the assistance is lost. This creates a “welfare trap”, where people are forced to remain in a state of underemployment- turning down more work hours, promotion, or another offer of employment at a higher wage- because a small increase in wages would result in a total (or near-total) loss of benefits.

You probably know people in this position, though you may not know they recieve entitlements. Many of them are ashamed to admit it. I know people who, for example, grocery shop late at night to avoid being seen using an EBT card. These people would much rather work their way to prosperity, but can’t.

2) The welfare reforms of the 1990s eliminated one major problem with welfare benefits by imposing a work requirement. Unfortunately, it also created an exemption to this work requirement for people who are certified “disabled”. The result: A dramatic increase in the percentage of the population certified “disabled”. This added bulk of not-really-disabled people drains resources from those who are legitimately handicapped: During the same period that the “disabled” population grew, the amount of spending on programs for people with severe mental and physical impairments decreased. Public money the taxpayers believed was going to assist these people was actually being paid to freeloaders.

In order to undo this situation, we have to scrap the entire concept of “disability” from the law. I recommend a similar, but more precise term: “Helplessness“. I don’t think any small-government conservative, no matter how hardcore, really has issue with assisting those who are legitimately helpless- those whose physical or mental impairments make them unable to fend for themselves.

3) The size of the welfare bureaucracy is staggering. Approximately 750,000 federal, state, and local public employees work in our welfare system nationwide. To put this number in perspective, that’s about the number of medical doctors in the United States. The vast majority of these people work in jobs involving the movement of money and/or paperwork between government entities. It goes without saying that this obscenely large bureaucracy is enormously costly.

So how do we eliminate the poverty trap, reform disability, and shrink the enormous bureaucracy, without eliminating the social safety net?

Enter Milton Friedman, the god of libertarian economics.

Friedman’s idea for fixing this problem was to scrap the grant-based system and replace it with a single, uniform negative income tax credit. Under this system, each person would be eligible for a refundable tax credit, which would diminish fractionally for each dollar of income earned.

To illustrate this concept (the actual amounts would likely differ):

Assuming a NIT credit of $10,000 and an amortization rate of 50%:

A person who earned no income would be eligible for the full credit of $10,000;

A person who worked and earned $5,000 would have their credit reduced by 50% of this amount ($2,500), and would have a total income of $12,500 ($5,000 in wages plus $7,500 in credit);

A person who earned $12,000 would have their credit reduced by 50% (or $6,000), and would have a total income of $16,000 ($12,000 in wages plus $4,000 credit);

A person who earned $20,000 would neither pay taxes nor recieve credit, and income above $20,000 would be subject to income tax.

As you can see, this system would eliminate the welfare trap, since any increase in wages would still yield an increase in total income. It would require substantially fewer bureaucrats to administer. And it would allow funds to be targeted specifically toward the helpless- in the form of supplying facilities and equipment, such as group homes and motorized wheelchairs- rather than doling out cash, which is too prone to fraud.

It would also substantially reduce the cost to taxpayers of providing a social safety net.

It must be noted that we do have a NIT credit of sorts in use already- the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Unfortunately, it’s currently just another welfare benefit. In order for a NIT system to genuinely replace the welfare grants, we’d have to convince enough well-intentioned but misguided liberal voters that it really is a better, more compassionate system; one which allows us to better serve genuinely handicapped people, and which allows working people to succeed and get off of welfare- and live with greater dignity- rather than being stuck in a system which demeans and dehumanizes them.

Lets Give the Liberals the Tax Hikes They Demand: Thanksgiving Edition

As the sweet aroma of Mom’s pumpkin pie fills the home this Thanksgiving morning, and with the turkey all set to go into the oven, I decided to take the time out to give thanks to Rich Mitchell and the CDN staff for giving me the platform to share my conservative news and opinion articles today. The following is my contribution to the CDN mission by producing some out-of-the-box ideas on the most important issue facing Americans in the coming year: How to reduce our massive national debt, and how to unlock the current Congressional stalemate by giving the Democrats the tax hikes they so fiercely demand. Happy Thanksgiving from all of us here at CDN. Enjoy your day. 

It is once again time to call the Liberal Democrat’s bluff. Let’s give them the tax increases they so heartily demand, but on their own stated ideological terms. Liberals have certain planks in their ideology that must be used in the tax increase debate up in Congress. This proposed tax increase leglislation has to include such lovely-sounding Liberal catch-phrases of wealth redistribution, social justice, equal justice, and President Obama’s personal favorite, community service. (while keeping in mind the Democrat’s past history of reneging on promised cuts in federal spending.)

Let’s start out by taking Wolf Blitzer’s often-asked question of whether GOP Presidential candidates would accept a 10 to 1 ratio of budget cuts to tax increase dollars. The GOP must call the Liberal media’s bluff and accept that scenario… in an intelligent, yet very simple way. Draw up the bill in the House of Representatives immediately that says yes, the GOP will accept $10 dollars in budget cuts for every single dollar in increases taxes. That is straight forward and simple enough, even for the mathematically challenged Democrats and President Obama to understand.  Now that we have agreed to Wolf Blitzer’s leftist-parroted demands for those tax increases during the current recession, let’s take it one step further in appeasing the Liberals. Let’s add the Liberal/OWS ideological planks of equal justice, social justice, wealth redistribution and community service into the new tax increase bill shall we? 

Introducing HR-2011-The Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011- (NOT an actual bill in congress)

Bill Sponsored by DJ Redman  No Co-sponsors to date.

Section 1-A: Equal Justice for all in the form of tax increases. 

Equal justice means just what the title says. Equal treatment for all Americans, regardless of race, national origin, income status, or political affiliation. Therefore, in keeping with the Liberal ideology of “equal justice for all” the tax increases will be applied to every adult of working age in America.( whether they actually work or not) Section 1-A of the Liberal tax increase bill of 2011,may also be referred to as, “Equal justice in paying your fair share in America.” In this section there will be a means tested chart for how much new taxes will be levied on every person in the USA, illegals included, regardless of private sector income. Welfare checks, rent subsidies, WIC coupons, utility bill payments, food stamps and every other hidden government pay- for- not- working entitlement program will be taxed before checks/payments will be sent out. Equal justice, as in everyone paying their fair share as outlined in this section should really have the support of every debt-spending Liberal in Congress, hands down. If the workers of America have to pay more taxes on their hard-earned wealth, making the non-workers pay taxes on their government handouts should also make the Unions quite happy. Millionaire Union Chiefs could say they are working hard to protect the workers in America by supporting tax increases on the freeloaders and non-producers of our society who unfairly burden their working class Union members. This section will do wonders for the entitlement class in America as they will be able to now stand up and be counted as actual taxpayers, instead of a 100% parasitic drain on society. 

Section 1-B of the Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011 will include several measures of the Liberals beloved “Social Justice” plank.  

Section 1-B will include mandatory work for welfare reforms built upon the 1994 GOP Welfare reform plan that reduced the number of people on welfare by 50% by the year 1998. Social justice demands that the welfare class do their part in society to reduce our national debt and rebuild America. Work for welfare will also have the added benefit of restoring some self-respect into the welfare class, so that when they scurry to their mailbox for their government entitlement ”paychecks” as they like to call them, they will have the added pleasure of knowing that they have actually earned that money. Social Justice will be well-served in this action, by evening out the class warfare of today that is being caused by 50% of the population demanding that the working class support them. True Social Justice demands that the working class be represented equally, not just the racial politics-driven minorities, the poor, or the illegal aliens in America. 

Section 1–C of the Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011 will also include a healthy dose of the wealth redistribution that President Obama has pushed his Democrats to achieve for 3 straight years. As in any “Social Justice, and Equal Justice” driven wealth redistributive policies, there has to be fairness across the economic spectrum. This has to start with sections 1-A and 1-B, where everyone not only shares in the wealth created by the citizenry, but also must include the sharing of the debt that the very government they have elected has created. There is no justice of any form inherent in the Liberal ideology of sharing in the wealth while refusing to share in the debt at the same time, period. Every single adult in America will share in our debt, one way or the other. This is a true form of Social Justice, so it should receive 100% Democratic support. In order to not infuriate the welfare class, we will use a long standing Democratic budgetary trick in not calling it a welfare tax. Let’s instead label it “Processing Fees to Improve America” on all unearned entitlement check stubs. That way, Democrats can stand up in Congress and tell their voting base that they did not, in fact raise taxes on them. (wink) Section 1-C simply states that every adult in America will now share in our national debt, not just the working class and job-creating business class. 

Section 2 of the Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011 will contain  penalties  provisions that simply states that any elected official found to be in violation of the 10 to 1 budget cuts to tax increases ratio in this bill, (as Democrats did when they increased spending by $480 billion after promising President Reagan $280 billion in cuts) will face an immediate Bernie Madoff-style trial after being suspended from Congress. For every dollar they are found to be increasing in spending instead of cutting, they will forfeit $10 dollars of their personal wealth, most of which they have acquired through illegal insider trading and ripping off the taxpayers to begin with. Every elected official who’s signature is found to be on any spending bill breaking the 10 to 1 budget cuts to tax increases provisions in this bill will share equally in paying off the illegal increased spending. How;s that for “Equal Justice” Congress ? We the people will now be able to hold elected officials responsible for their debt-spending thanks to the Liberal tax Increase bill of 2011. In the case of elected members of Congress found guilty of  increasing spending under this new law, and who can not afford to repay the citizenry the full amount, see section 3.

Section -2-A of the Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011 will include a very healthy dose of Barack Obama’s ideological roots that propelled him into politics in the first place: Community service. Any elected official found to be in violation of section 2, and can not repay the citizenry  for the illegal spending increases outlines in this bill will be mandated to perform community service to pay off their debt to society at a rate of 1 hour for every dollar they owe the American public. With the massive increases of manpower derived from this penalty phase,  politicians caught lying to the American people and not making the agreed upon budget cuts,  will be mandated to do everything Barack Obama says his fake jobs bill would do:  We will rebuild all of our bridges, roadways, and schools with this new-found free labor. We will send our convicted politicians into the downtrodden slums and ghettos to clean them up, giving Barack Obama and his Democrats the “urban renewal” they so desire, and it won’t cost the taxpayers one thin dime in labor. We can also have criminal politicians save the Post Office from the government and labor-union caused bankruptcy crisis they are currently under, by having them sort and deliver mail as part of their community service. Democrats have always been the champions of imprisoned felons rights groups, so we shall also mandate that all prisoners do extensive community service as part of the new social justice programs in HR 2011, thereby supplying America with an estimated annual 500 million free man-hours of labor to rebuild America.  Felonious members of Congress will be working side by side with the convicted murderers, rapists, Occupy Wall Street vermin, welfare class, and convicted illegal drug cartel members in the ultimate form of their beloved Social Justice.  

*HR-2011 is reported to have national bi-partisan support, according to several ex-members of Congress, unnamed sources,and distant friends of ex-Congressional aides, all of whom who wish to remain anonymous for personal and national security reasons.

*HR-2011 is estimated to cut our national debt by over $4 trillion dollars a year by the newly formed *Common Sense Home Budgetarians/Working Taxpayers of America Foundation.

*Yes these statements are made in humor, using fictitious group’s names to make the point of how our government uses their government-funded non-profit puppet organizations statistics and unnamed sources to claim bi-partisan support, budgetary savings etc.