http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/559-The-American-Recovery-and-Reinvestment-Act-of-2009.htmlI decided that it's time to jump in on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This is a disturbing proposition for America. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is loaded with special interest pork and government job protection. Sometimes, I think these bills should read the The American Taxpayer Cash Diversion Program to protect Government Bureaucrats. The purposes they claim for both the House and Senate Bills respectively...
http://www.opencongress.or..g/bill/111-h1/showMaking supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
http://www.opencongress.or..g/bill/111-s1/showA bill to create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America's middle class through measures that modernize the nation's infrastructure, enhance America's energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need, and for other purposes.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has many flaws, other than of course reinvesting working people's income into non-working people's pockets as if it will actually stimulate or sustain an economy. IE: Socialism and Communism have both tried it to their despair. The thing about these programs are that they erode true equal protection in the way that people no longer have equal opportunities. Instead the people are being drained financially to support those that do not participate fully in the free economy marketplace. I am convinced that bills like this further erode our economy, weakening our dollar, and undermining basic liberties and freedoms for the average citizen.
One of my main concerns is that our Congressmen think they can change the wording and convince people that something bad is really good by coming up with a beneficial sounding title. Taxpayer cash diversion programs that don't stimulate production have a negative effect on sustaining an economy for the long term. A particular area of concern with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is that States will no longer have to contribute to their own dysfunctional family court system. Instead the States want to just keep receiving huge incentives for having larger family court and child support caseloads which is like a huge negative reward for social dysfunction. Breaking down the family unit however, will lead to complete implosion of our economic structure by itself whether or not done in conjunction with this reinvestment bill.
In 2005 the Deficit Reduction Act (2005) was passed that in pertinent part sealed a loophole that allowed the states participating in the voluntary program to "double dip."
Under Sec. 7309 which ended federal matching of state spending of federal incentive payments and to require a fee for successful child support collection not on TANF.Sec. 7309(a) In General- Section 455(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 655(a)(1)) is amended by inserting from amounts paid to the State under section 458 or' before ..to carry out an agreement'.Sec. 7310 also requires a Mandatory Fee for Successful Child Support Collection for Family That has Never Received TANF.In the past, before the spending loophole was closed by the federal government to protect taxpayer interests, what was happening was that a state was spending a federal incentive dollar to get more federal grant money and not contributing anything to the program itself. This obviously is and was a drain on taxpayers in the past, especially when states like California take up 1/5 of the entire allocated funds that are set aside for the whole nation. The Budget Deficit Reduction Act above requires that for non-welfare recipients that $25.00 a year be paid for the services they are receiving from the government.
Women's groups and other special interest lobbies are crying foul, because they don't believe that the state or recipients should have to pay for their fair share of the services, and wants the entire taxpayer population to endure the drain on the public resources whether or not that recipient even qualifies for other welfare services.
At the very least, reinstating the funding loophole is irresponsible, but the program for child support and family court should be limited to those that are eligible to receive actual TANF benefits, else the beneficiaries should pay for the services themselves and leave the taxpayers out of the loop.