Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Apr. 12, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Put your money where your mouth is

Congressman can help you fulfill the dream

Tax day is almost upon us -- and with it come the justifiable complaints about the government money grab.

But from some quarters, you might hear a different lament: That Washington doesn't take enough of our money -- that it needs even more to provide all the "services" necessary to take care of us from cradle to grave.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • For those who embrace such a perspective -- which apparently includes both the remaining Democratic presidential contenders, who oppose the renewal of the Bush tax cuts, thus endorsing the largest tax increase in American history -- Rep. John Campell, R-Calif., has a proposal especially for you.

    Rep. Campbell has introduced the Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act, which would amend current tax forms to include a line allowing individuals to make additional contributions to the Treasury, above and beyond their actual tax obligations.

    "If the bill passes, it will be easy to send extra tax dollars to Washington, where everyone knows they will be wisely spent," said a tongue-in-cheek Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. "More money could be spent on important priorities like hops research, lobster and sheep institutes or olive fly research."

    Of course, Rep. Campbell's legislation stands no chance -- although it's unclear why his Democratic colleagues wouldn't put it on the fast track.

    Perhaps it would be too embarrassing for the forces of Big Government to admit that most Americans wouldn't be clamoring to participate.

    It brings to mind the modest DMV rebate most Nevadans received a few years back when the state had a budget surplus. More than one left-leaning pundit expressed great indignation over the plan, arguing that state bureaucrats could make far better use of the money than those who actually earned it.

    Of course, those conscientious objectors immediately returned their $275 stipends as soon as they arrived in the mail, no?

    What do you think?



    Leave Your Comment 9 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    douglas wrote on April 12, 2008 09:47 PM: again, one might examine those percentages of the u.s. gross domestic product spent on defense relative to federal entitlements. google is your friend. as to china's cost of an army... my chinese army "guide" on the last trip to tibet was earning 30 dollars a month.

    what is amazing is that the two "progressive" candidates would upwardly explode that federal entitlement percentage. add in hapless harry reid's "pre-citizens" who would instantly get in any and all, freebie lines, and the u.s. will enjoy a new version of a depression. adding 10 to 100 million open beaks to the present taxprayers' load via the present infiltrators and those flooding across the promised "open borders" should pretty much bust in half the camel's back. no doubt the newspeak term for the depression will be as entertaining as the newspeak term for child diddler..."ex-offender".


    Mitch Chaires wrote on April 12, 2008 06:51 PM: This is even better. Quoted from the same site:

    In 2003, the United States spent about 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.


    Mitch Chaires wrote on April 12, 2008 06:47 PM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States.

    "The 2005 U.S. military budget constitutes almost as much as the rest of the world combined [7] and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China."

    Okay so pro-American democrats are right.
    Republicans are wrong.


    douglas wrote on April 12, 2008 09:25 AM: what is amusing is that the usual leftist, anti-american spin is that the u.s. military budget is the "biggest" et cetera. were these stooges to use a computer for other than mimicking the leftist handouts, they might discover that federal entitlements dwarf all other programs, including u.s. military defense. but that would require honor to admit.

    and, for some reason those who demand that all citizens support increasing the federal handouts, they stop short of writing that extra check. no different than that oaf gore lambasting citizens to walk to work while he flies about in his gas guzzler, private jet. money/mouth; walk/talk come to mind.


    grumpy wrote on April 12, 2008 09:08 AM: Actually, taxpayers ought to be given the option of selecting what federal agencies to fund. This would eliminate a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity regarding the current opinion of government and agencies. I would break the selections as follows:
    An option to select a percentage of tax for each of the federal agencies, Defense, HUD, Education and so forth.
    I would be certain to highlight congressional salaries as well. I would think a lot of folks would put a zero there--I know I would.


    tim wrote on April 12, 2008 08:22 AM: reinstate the draft,flood iraq with troops and the war will end a lot sooner.money saved.plus send all politicians kids,no draft evasion.


    jimshoes wrote on April 12, 2008 08:11 AM: I would like to see a $5.00 tax on every single return or $10.00 on a joint return to pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Soldiers need a 7.5% increase in pay every year and equipment upgrade. More bullets more security.


    Lee wrote on April 12, 2008 06:55 AM: All taxation is extortion and all politicians are crooks.


    Don Palmer wrote on April 12, 2008 06:51 AM: You mention hops research, lobster and sheep institutes, etc..., but not the biggest waste of our money - IRAQ!!!!