Friday, December 21, 2007


I support the concept that if Congress cuts taxes in one area it must “pay for it” in some other area. This is necessary for at least the appearance of attempting to balance the budget.

The Democrats proposed we cut the AMT and increase taxes on hedge fund investors to pay for it.

However, why does a tax cut here have to always be paid for with a tax increase there? Why can’t we pay for a tax cut with a similar cut in unnecessary government spending instead?

To cover the cost of the AMT fix, how about a few less bridges to nowhere or ridiculous government studies?

This is also an issue in my home state of New Jersey. The answer to balancing the budget is automatically raising taxes and fees and never cutting expenses.

Unfortunately “pork” is the currency of politicians – whether it be personal pork (i.e. allowing NJ officials to hold two or three or more elected and/or appointed - often no-show - paying jobs at once, with double and triple dipping into the benefits pool), or special interest pork, or constituent-based pork.

Oi vey!



Will said...

I completely understand your frustruations. I hate to be so cynical, but it sure seems that the majority of our elected officials care ONLY about getting re-elected. The amount of waste and pork spending in Washington these days is absolutely reprehensible. We can't even come close to balancing the Federal budget now and Social Security still has a surplus.... What happens when SS goes into decifit after 2015??

Keep up the great work with your blog! It is a terrific source of information and your writing style is very accessible. Thanks!

Robert D Flach said...


Thanks for the kinds words.

Wouldn’t you know it – I will turn 62 in 2015!