What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?

[Gob]

Feeding America is the nation's leading domestic hunger-relief charity. Our mission is to feed America's hungry through a nationwide network of member food banks and engage our country in the fight to end hunger.

Nearly 14 million children are estimated to be served by Feeding America, over 3 million of which are ages 5 and under.
According to the USDA, over 16 million children lived in food insecure (low food security and very low food security) households in 2010.

20% or more of the child population in 40 states and D.C. lived in food insecure households in 2009. The District of Columbia (32.3%) and Oregon (29.2%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food.

In 2009, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are the District of Columbia, Oregon, Arizona, Arkansas, & Texas. iii

In 2009, the top five states with the lowest rate of food insecure children under 18 are North Dakota, New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, & Massachusetts. iii

Proper nutrition is vital to the growth and development of children. 62 percent of client households with children under the age of 18 reported participating in the National School Lunch Program, but only 14 percent reported having a child participate in a summer feeding program that provides free food when school is out.i

54 percent of client households with children under the age of 3 participated in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).i

32 percent of pantries, 42 percent of kitchens, and 18 percent of shelters in the Feeding America network reported "many more children in the summer" being served by their programs.i

In 2010, 16.4 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.

Research indicates that hungry children have do more poorly in school and have lower academic achievement because they are not well prepared for school and cannot concentrate.

In fiscal year 2009, 48 percent of all SNAP participants were children

During the 2010 federal fiscal year, 20.6 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program. Unfortunately, just 2.3 million of these same income-eligible children participated in the Summer Food Service Program that same year.

http://feedingamerica.org

[dgs49]

Not saying that there are not a lot of children (and adults) who are too poor to eat well or properly, but consider a theoretical charity that offered free food to anyone who thought they needed it. Tracking the number of people who took advantage of the free food would not be an indication of the number of "poor," but rather the number of people who would want to take advantage of something that is free - not the same thing at all.

The most remarkable thing about the charts above is one basic perversity: If you make reasonable assumptions about the "discretionary" category (HeadStart, Federal housing subsidies, etc), MOST Federal government money now goes to benefit individuals, and not society, which is a total perversion of our Constitutional framework. If you look at Section 8 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution (which lists EVERYTHING that Congress is empowered to spend money on), THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THING THAT PUTS MONEY IN AN INDIVIDUAL'S POCKET OR PROVIDES A BENEFIT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL. And yet that's where most Federal money goes.

But of course, our exalted Supreme Court has decided that all of this spending on individuals is "Constitutional."

Right.

[Grim Reaper]

And yet that's where most Federal money goes.

Really? You're going to use this? Try again when you've done a tiny bit of research on this subject.

Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/aid are all much larger chunks of the pie.

[Lord Jim]

MOST Federal government money now goes to benefit individuals, and not society,

Lord knows that I don't want to be the champion of federal spending, (and I know there's a lot of waste and fraud and money spent on silly and/or unnecessary things, and programs that could be better handled by someone other than the feds, etc. etc.) but I'm not sure that in a lot of cases the distinction you're making there is a particularly useful or meaningful one...

Without going into the relative merits (or lack thereof ) of specific programs, but just as a general principle, it seems to me that there are many cases where the one is addressed by addressing the other...

For example:

It certainly is a "benefit to society" for our country not to have food riots...

Food riots are of course unpleasant things in and of themselves, and they can frequently lead to even more unpleasant things...(See Revolution, French)

And of course the best way to avoid food riots is to make sure that people aren't starving...(Starvation, or the looming threat of starvation, generally being the immediate and proximate cause of food riots)

So by having programs in place that make certain that individuals don't starve, we obtain the societal benefit of avoiding food riots...

This is just one example; there are others...

Now Dave I suppose your answer to this might be , "WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVING THE RIGHT TO PREVENT FOOD RIOTS!"

But if that is your answer I would suggest to you that your view is not a "conservative" one. It is a Radical Randian, or Neo-Spencerian view, but there's nothing particularly "conservative" about it...

Also if you don't believe that the federal government has the right to have programs that prevent food riots, I would also conclude that you must not be much of a fan of the "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" concept either....

[Gob]

But if that is your answer I would suggest to you that your view is not a "conservative" one. It is a Radical lunatic, or Neo-fruitcake view, but there's nothing particularly "conservative" about it...

Fixed.

[Crackpot]

I don't see a difference

[Sue U]

[dgs49]

All I am pointing out is that the current Federal Government is allocating more than half of all of the money it spends to benefit INDIVIDUALS, rather than for public purposes.

The cornerstone of Congress' powers is Section 8. Look at the list: coining money, naturalization, post offices, patents & copyrights, the military services. These are all things that provide a PUBLIC benefit, and none of them puts money or benefits into any individual's pocket.

Starting with Social Security, Congress has gradually gotten into the business of "helping" individuals - pensioners, farmers, the poor, the sick, the homeless, and so on. My point is not that this is a bad thing or that it ought to be STOPPED IMMEDIATELY(!), but merely that it is not the sort of thing that the Founding Fathers intended, and (to keep beating the dead horse) that it violates both the letter and the spirit of the United States Constitution.

The Federal Government, under our Constitution really doesn't care whether people starve to death, or we have food riots, or whether welfare queens in Los Angeles have a comfortable place to sleep at night. That is up to, "...the States respectively, or to the people." (You should know where those words come from).

When considering any new Federal program, the proper inquiries are: (1) is it Constitutional, (2) is it a good idea, and (3) can we afford it?

In Washington today, the only thing anyone wants to consider is #2. And to say that something is (#1) unconstitutional is not the same as saying it is (#2) a bad idea. There are a lot of good ideas that are unconstitutional as hell.

And we are paying for them with MORE THAN HALF of our federal tax dollars.

We need a constitutional convention. Soon.

[Big RR]

How much spending for "public" benefit is not aimed at or directed to individuals? Road building clearly benefits those individuals employed in that building (or contracted to do it), public education clearly benefits the individual students (not to mention the teachers or administrators), increased police or ilitary presence clearly benefits those who seeks those positions, etc. Indeed, there is no spending I can think of that puts no meny or benefits into any individual's pockets. Everyone of those services you mention provides good employment opportinuinities for individuals, and patents and copyright laws are designed to economically reward inventors or creators who choose to make thier inventions/creations public (now, before you say it, this is clearly enabled by a Constitutional provision, but it is hardly a benefit designed to benefit the public alone, the individual economic benefit of exclusivity is clearly a quid pro quo for the public benefit).

[rubato]

All I am pointing out is that the current Federal Government is allocating more than half of all of the money it spends to benefit INDIVIDUALS, rather than for public purposes.

The cornerstone of Congress' powers is Section 8. Look at the list: coining money, naturalization, post offices, patents & copyrights, the military services. These are all things that provide a PUBLIC benefit, and none of them puts money or benefits into any individual's pocket.
... "

How are patents and copyrights not individual benefits? You don't actually think this through, do you?



yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Are you two really that stupid? You can't see the difference between a public benefit and a payment to an individual? Between the establishment of the Post Office and sending a check to Granny?

The issuance and management of patents? You don't see that as a public benefit?

Nothing more to be said. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Nobody could be that stupid.

[Scooter]

They are different and yet they are the same. In both there is a tangible benefit that accrues to an individual, and an intangible benefit that is enjoyed by society as a whole.

[Big RR]

Indeed.

[dgs49]

Building a road is the same as sending out a pension check. Because individuals drive on the road.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[Scooter]

Keep trying, Dave, you'll get it right eventually.

Or not.

[Grim Reaper]

Where does dgs49 think the military gets all their shiny new toys? There's a whole lot of private individuals benefiting from the portion of the budget that he doesn't think benefits private individuals.

[dales]

Building a road is the same as sending out a pension check. Because individuals drive on the road.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Where does HE enter into this discussion?

[Scooter]

That's the model of a practicing Catholic for you, wouldn't recognize a commandment if it hit him in the face.