This afternoon I received a very interesting survey that I initially mistook to be from the United States Federal Government. On the contrary, the survey is a joint effort of The Heritage Foundation and Representative Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) office. As a recipient of the survey, I am to “represent taxpayer opinion” in my area “on the reckless spending in Washington that threatens to destroy our economic security.” So, no pressure.
According to an introductory letter, the survey was meant to serve as a “”wake-up call” to political leaders that they cannot ignore their responsibility to manage [our] tax dollars effectively… ESPECIALLY now that President Barack Obama, Big Labor, and the tax-and-spend special interests are pushing harder than ever for bigger government and more spending.”
Upset you weren’t one of the Heritage’s chosen representatives? Upset that you were, and dislike the questions as much as I? Wondering how to respond? Fear not! I’ve painstakingly typed up each question, and added a little commentary just for kicks.
(Official responses were limited to “Yes”, “No”, and “Undecided”.)
1. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, annual federal spending has more than quintupled since 1965 and has more than doubled since 1980. In general, do you think that the Federal Government is spending too much money?
Cool. So they start you off with a softball. Even Alec Baldwin could probably agree that we’re spending too much (at least in sentiment).
2. Are you concerned that unchecked spending is getting worse now that liberals like President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are in power?
Name dropping. Automatic demerit.
3. The number of pork projects in the federal budget skyrocketed from under 1,600 in 1997 to more than 10,000 in 2009. Cost to taxpayers: $19 billion in 2009. So far this year Congress has approved some 10,000 earmarks–everything from bike paths to textile research. Does this level of pork-barrel spending meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
Wait. Spending for 2009…who set that? Hint: it wasn’t that wily President Barack Obama….please don’t tell me you need another hint. No? Good. Mission Accomplished.
4. Thanks to pork projects and Big Government budgets, the federal government spent more than $33,000 per household–up more than $13,000 since 2001. Does this level of spending meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
Hold the phone. What year of spending is up $13,000? 2009? 2010? At any rate, the statement proceeding the question is poorly worded (probably because the question is misleading…to where, I’m not sure).
5. Are you concerned that this wasteful government spending threatens our ability to reform and modernize truly important programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
(My initial response to this question was way too snarky, even for me. I just haven’t come up with a suitable substitute. Yet.)
6. To finance their spending hikes, Congress is piling up enormous deficits. The federal government is already facing a $1.8 trillion budget deficit. Do you believe such a large deficit is fiscally irresponsible?
Hmm…deficits are tricky.
7. Congress recently earmarked $4.5 million for research on how to use wood. Since 1985, taxpayers have forked over almost $100 million for this research. Do you approve of this use of your tax dollars?
No. But I can think of many other spending items I disapprove of more.
8. Recent spending bills approved by the liberals in Congress included $1.7 million for swine odor research and another $1.9 million for a landfill gas utilization plant. Do you approve of this use of your tax dollars?
Redundant question, redundant answer. See #7. Also, what “recent” spending bills have been approved by “conservatives”? Oh, right. (Say, that’s a familiar face. Ryan…Ryan…why does that ring a bell?)
9. Do you agree with Heritage and Rep. Paul Ryan that Congress should be required to vote on specific earmarks that are placed into the federal budget, and that sponsors of an earmark should have to defend the merits of their spending proposals?
“Specific earmarks.” I love a good loophole.
10Â Heritage is working to highlight specific proposals for stopping the waste of your tax dollars, and to target specific pork projects that should be eliminated. Does this plan meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
So some pork is good for you, just not all pork? Which begs the question: whose pork?
11. Heritage is emphasizing the need to end taxpayer-funded corporate welfare that subsidizes CEOs and large corporations at the expense of families, seniors and workers. Eliminating corporate welfare should save taxpayers some $60 billion each year. Does this plan meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
I think this might actually be the most insulting question, yet (”families, seniors and workers”…oh my). Why not ask about an end to corporatism, period?
12. Heritage is highlighting the costly repetition in the federal budget, which features 342 separate economic development programs, 130 programs serving the disabled and 130 programs targeting at-risk youth. The Heritage plan to consolidate these programs would save taxpayers billions and do a better job of solving the problems these programs are supposed to address. Does such a plan meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
Well? Does it?!
Anyway, that’s the survey. How would you have responded?
Hopefully some time next week, I’ll do a quick run-down of some of the great things Heritage has done during its existence; for the time being, though, this exercise in civic duty was a disappointment.
[Shades of the survey can be found in this article from March of 2009. --Ed. Note]
