http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:31:59 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american/comment-page-1#comment-4693 Robert V Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:13:59 +0000 http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american#comment-4693 As explained in Federalist # 10, the biggest problem with a government like ours that subsidizes so many things is that the pressure on the government is for more different types of and greater amounts in subsidies. The reason for this is simple. Using agriculture as an example, according to the current budget report issued by OMB (FY 2009), Farm Income Stabilization (the budget term for farm subsidies) is 13.094 billion dollars. This amounts to 0.4796% of total federal spending of 2.730241 trillion dollars (this data is for FY 2007). This means that for every $1000.00 someone pays in income taxes roughly $4.80 pays for these subsidies. Thnk about this. Who is going to pay a lobbyist $100,000 (or more) a year to lobby his case: A taxpayer who would save $48 on a $10,000 tax bill if the program were abolished or a corporate CEO whose company receives more than $1,000,000 per year in subsidies. Obviously it's the CEO. The fact the benefits of subsidies are concentrated and the cost is dispersed, and thus the pressure is far more likely to come from those receiving subsidies, is a major reason why the men who wrote the Constitution considered the practice of government subsidies per se to be a corrupt practice that the federal government should avoid doing at all costs.<br><b>References : </b><br> As explained in Federalist # 10, the biggest problem with a government like ours that subsidizes so many things is that the pressure on the government is for more different types of and greater amounts in subsidies. The reason for this is simple. Using agriculture as an example, according to the current budget report issued by OMB (FY 2009), Farm Income Stabilization (the budget term for farm subsidies) is 13.094 billion dollars. This amounts to 0.4796% of total federal spending of 2.730241 trillion dollars (this data is for FY 2007). This means that for every $1000.00 someone pays in income taxes roughly $4.80 pays for these subsidies. Thnk about this. Who is going to pay a lobbyist $100,000 (or more) a year to lobby his case: A taxpayer who would save $48 on a $10,000 tax bill if the program were abolished or a corporate CEO whose company receives more than $1,000,000 per year in subsidies. Obviously it’s the CEO. The fact the benefits of subsidies are concentrated and the cost is dispersed, and thus the pressure is far more likely to come from those receiving subsidies, is a major reason why the men who wrote the Constitution considered the practice of government subsidies per se to be a corrupt practice that the federal government should avoid doing at all costs.
References :

]]> http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american/comment-page-1#comment-4692 Jefferson Republican Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:31:59 +0000 http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american#comment-4692 giving the taxpayers money away is the sure fire path to getting reelcted<br><b>References : </b><br> giving the taxpayers money away is the sure fire path to getting reelcted
References :

]]> http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american/comment-page-1#comment-4691 wilderwriter Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:16:59 +0000 http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american#comment-4691 Check the statistics. The "middle men" get whatever windfall you think commodities are getting. Prices for farmers are still shockingly low. But you're right about subsidies for a lot of people.<br><b>References : </b><br> Check the statistics. The "middle men" get whatever windfall you think commodities are getting. Prices for farmers are still shockingly low. But you’re right about subsidies for a lot of people.
References :

]]> http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american/comment-page-1#comment-4690 fairly smart Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:54:59 +0000 http://www.chrissander.com/house-of-representatives-congress/why-did-our-great-house-of-representatives-refuse-to-scale-back-any-of-the-subsidies-being-given-to-american#comment-4690 You obviously don't live in the country, or near any farms...<br><b>References : </b><br> You obviously don’t live in the country, or near any farms…
References :

]]>