If everyone thought that nothing could make a difference then nothing would. However, we have seen that proven wrong when so many American's contacted their Congresspeople about raising the debt ceiling! Some members of the American public got sick and tired of it and spoke out. There was a lot of coverage about this in the National News Programs about how many American's spoke out and what method that they chose to speak out with.
With the invention of the internet, the world is changing. People who live under harsh, brutal and oppressive conditions somhow managed to got on the internet and saw how other people in the world lived and finally decided to fight back! They want their freedom.
Even if it is just a matter of signing or starting a petition (easy to do on the CARE 2 website), writing a blog or some e-mails, or posting ideas on the social network sites(Facebook, My Space, My Lot, to name a few) or send an e-mail to their leaders (easy to do on Congress.org). All of these actions can help to make a difference!
Once, a small group of people decided that they didn't want to be ruled by King George of England anymore and got together and fought and won the American Revolution! Today, we don't need to get out a gun, just get a pen and paper or turn on our computers and get involved! TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. We just have to get off the sidelines and into the game!
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Let's start trying to balance the budget! Instant yearly savings of over $9 Million!
There seems to be a lot of discussion about how to reduce Government spending. Of course, everyone has a different idea. I have one idea that is a small step fiscally, but would be a bigger step from a Public Relations stand point. Let's start at the top. According to articles in Wikipedia, I have discovered the earnings of our leaders in the United States Government.
It is well known that many workers in the United States have been asked to take cuts in their earnings during tough times. Somehow, the President, Vice President and members of the United States Congress have been spared from taking salary reductions for the good of our country.
The President of The United States earns $ 400,000 annual salary*
The Vice President 230,700 annual salary**
The Speaker of the House 212,100 annual salary***
President Pro Tempore 183,500 annual salary***
Majority Leader of the Senate 183,500 annual salary***
Majority Leader in the House 183,500 annual salary***
Minority Leader in the Senate 183,500 annual salary***
Minority Leader in the House 183,500 annual salary***
97 Remaining Senators @ $169,300 16,422,100 annual salary***
433 Remaining House Reps @ $169,300 73,306,900 annual salary***
Total Salaries: $91,489,300.
"Congressional Leaders" get 183,500.*** But since I don't know how many people are considered to be "Congressional Leaders", I used the salary of Non-Office holding members of Congress of $169,300.
Let's ask our leaders to take a ten percent pay cut, make a sacarifice for the "team". That would be an annual savings of $9,148,930. While that is "small change" compared to the billions and billions of dollars that the U. S. Governement spends every year, it would definately help! When you consider that the medium American Income for Men is $45,113 and for Women it is $35,102, I really don't think that it is too much to ask.
I have heard that while President, John F. Kennedy took a salary of only $1 per year because of his family's wealth. Many of our member of Congress are very wealthly and could afford to volunteer to take a larger reduction. If the heads of the United States Government are expecting us to "tighten our belts", shouldn't they be willing to do the same thing?
References:
* Wikipedia article, "President of the United States".
** Wikipedia article, "Vice-President of the United States".
*** Wikipedia article, "United States Congress".
It is well known that many workers in the United States have been asked to take cuts in their earnings during tough times. Somehow, the President, Vice President and members of the United States Congress have been spared from taking salary reductions for the good of our country.
The President of The United States earns $ 400,000 annual salary*
The Vice President 230,700 annual salary**
The Speaker of the House 212,100 annual salary***
President Pro Tempore 183,500 annual salary***
Majority Leader of the Senate 183,500 annual salary***
Majority Leader in the House 183,500 annual salary***
Minority Leader in the Senate 183,500 annual salary***
Minority Leader in the House 183,500 annual salary***
97 Remaining Senators @ $169,300 16,422,100 annual salary***
433 Remaining House Reps @ $169,300 73,306,900 annual salary***
Total Salaries: $91,489,300.
"Congressional Leaders" get 183,500.*** But since I don't know how many people are considered to be "Congressional Leaders", I used the salary of Non-Office holding members of Congress of $169,300.
Let's ask our leaders to take a ten percent pay cut, make a sacarifice for the "team". That would be an annual savings of $9,148,930. While that is "small change" compared to the billions and billions of dollars that the U. S. Governement spends every year, it would definately help! When you consider that the medium American Income for Men is $45,113 and for Women it is $35,102, I really don't think that it is too much to ask.
I have heard that while President, John F. Kennedy took a salary of only $1 per year because of his family's wealth. Many of our member of Congress are very wealthly and could afford to volunteer to take a larger reduction. If the heads of the United States Government are expecting us to "tighten our belts", shouldn't they be willing to do the same thing?
References:
* Wikipedia article, "President of the United States".
** Wikipedia article, "Vice-President of the United States".
*** Wikipedia article, "United States Congress".
Sunday, August 7, 2011
"Cut spending/balance the budget" Republican's go on spending spree
I was watching the CBS program, "Up to the Minute" late one night when I saw an interesting piece. It seems that some members of Congress ran on the "cut spending and balance the budget" platform have already gotten the "spending bug" and already have started to add excessive spending to the budget. This, again, shows how our Politicians say one thing to get elected then do a complete reversal once in office. They, however, don't want these things to become public so that they can scream they "are spending cut/balance the budget" Republicans.
The following is from the www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011 /07/26/evening news/main
By Sharyl Attkisson
(CBS News)
Bringing home the bacon is one of Washington's oldest traditions.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress spend considerable time trying to get federal funds for pet projects in their home districts.
So how's that affected some of the newer members who came to Washington vowing to cut federal spending at every turn? CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that in some cases, apparently, not at all.
Everyone agrees the old Stillwater Bridge linking Minnesota and Wisconsin is on its last legs and must go. But the fancy, $700 million replacement in the works costs double the cheaper alternative.
Why is Congress a millionaires club?
Do corporate interests rule Washington?
CBSNews.com special report: The United States of Influence
A bill co-sponsored by Republican freshman Sean Duffy paved the way for the expensive bridge to be built, even though he ran on this platform: "Our national debt has grown sky high thanks to the liberals in D.C. I'll work in Congress to cut spending and balance the budget."
Duffy's office told us his bill doesn't fund the bridge, it simply allows it to move forward and has some Democratic support too.
Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense sees it as a perfect example of excess Congress can't seem to resist, even during a time of fiscal crisis.
"There's an alternative that's hundreds of millions of dollars less, maybe not the signature bridge, maybe not the tourist attraction, but actually could get the job done for far less money," Ellis says.
Freshman Republican Steven Palazzo of Mississippi also ran as a fiscal conservative. Then he added more than $150 million to the defense budget, bound for a shipyard in his own district.
He didn't want to talk to CBS News but has said he's "glad to be able to help ensure the long-term viability of our shipbuilding industry."
Republican Duncan Hunter, now in his second term, added $5 million to the 2012 defense budget destined for Trex Enterprises, where employees are major donors to his campaign. Hunter also asked for $3 million in tax dollars for Trex in 2010.
A spokesman for Hunter told us part of his role in Congress is drawing business to companies in his district.
If Congress really expects to do more with less, it's not evident in their add-ons to the 2012 defense budget. There are fewer of them than in years past, but they add up to just as much as before: about $1.3 billion.
© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved."
The following is from the www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011 /07/26/evening news/main
"GOP fiscal hawks embrace pricey pet projects
By Sharyl Attkisson
(CBS News)
Bringing home the bacon is one of Washington's oldest traditions.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress spend considerable time trying to get federal funds for pet projects in their home districts.
So how's that affected some of the newer members who came to Washington vowing to cut federal spending at every turn? CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that in some cases, apparently, not at all.
Everyone agrees the old Stillwater Bridge linking Minnesota and Wisconsin is on its last legs and must go. But the fancy, $700 million replacement in the works costs double the cheaper alternative.
Why is Congress a millionaires club?
Do corporate interests rule Washington?
CBSNews.com special report: The United States of Influence
A bill co-sponsored by Republican freshman Sean Duffy paved the way for the expensive bridge to be built, even though he ran on this platform: "Our national debt has grown sky high thanks to the liberals in D.C. I'll work in Congress to cut spending and balance the budget."
Duffy's office told us his bill doesn't fund the bridge, it simply allows it to move forward and has some Democratic support too.
Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense sees it as a perfect example of excess Congress can't seem to resist, even during a time of fiscal crisis.
"There's an alternative that's hundreds of millions of dollars less, maybe not the signature bridge, maybe not the tourist attraction, but actually could get the job done for far less money," Ellis says.
Freshman Republican Steven Palazzo of Mississippi also ran as a fiscal conservative. Then he added more than $150 million to the defense budget, bound for a shipyard in his own district.
He didn't want to talk to CBS News but has said he's "glad to be able to help ensure the long-term viability of our shipbuilding industry."
Republican Duncan Hunter, now in his second term, added $5 million to the 2012 defense budget destined for Trex Enterprises, where employees are major donors to his campaign. Hunter also asked for $3 million in tax dollars for Trex in 2010.
A spokesman for Hunter told us part of his role in Congress is drawing business to companies in his district.
If Congress really expects to do more with less, it's not evident in their add-ons to the 2012 defense budget. There are fewer of them than in years past, but they add up to just as much as before: about $1.3 billion.
© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)