As you probably know, the state took in 1.5 billion extra bucks this year. We missed the perfect opportunity to be responsible with the extra cash, yet the beast of unquenchable thirst for gratuitous spending won the fight and government was fattened again. Since Sen. Glenn McConnell recognizes the need for constitutional restraint, I’ve been appointed to a subcommittee that will tackle his bill. We’ll meet on October 24 at 1pm in Gressette 105. I understand we’ll take these meetings around the state to listen to the frustrated taxpayers.

McConnell writes in an op-ed:
…There will always be more needs than revenue no matter what the economic times and the amount of available new funds. Government must, therefore, temper its conduct to spend so that, over the highs and lows in revenue forecasts, the necessary revenue will be there to fund essential needs without pressure for new taxes. When government is flush with money, the spending goes up to fund many new initiatives — some good, some questionable, and some not good. In other words, projects get funded not so much out of merit but merely because the money was available. Some one-time expenditures also occur the same way.

In the face of a bountiful taxpayer buffet, government cannot control its appetite so its stomach must be stapled. At stake is the need to at least control the rate of growth in the recurring base. Thusly, I have introduced a constitutional amendment to cap the rate of spending of state government. Government would be limited to growth at an amount that would not exceed the rate of population growth plus the growth in personal income. Basically, government should not grow any bigger than it needs to be or any faster than people’s ability to pay for it…to read the full article

BTW, the above picture is not my belly, not yet.

As you probably know, the state took in 1.5 billion extra bucks this year. We missed the perfect opportunity to be responsible with the extra cash, yet the beast of unquenchable thirst for gratuitous spending won the fight and government was fattened again. Since Sen. Glenn McConnell recognizes the need for constitutional restraint, I’ve been appointed to a subcommittee that will tackle his bill. We’ll meet on October 24 at 1pm in Gressette 105. I understand we’ll take these meetings around the state to listen to the frustrated taxpayers.

McConnell writes in an op-ed:
…There will always be more needs than revenue no matter what the economic times and the amount of available new funds. Government must, therefore, temper its conduct to spend so that, over the highs and lows in revenue forecasts, the necessary revenue will be there to fund essential needs without pressure for new taxes. When government is flush with money, the spending goes up to fund many new initiatives — some good, some questionable, and some not good. In other words, projects get funded not so much out of merit but merely because the money was available. Some one-time expenditures also occur the same way.

In the face of a bountiful taxpayer buffet, government cannot control its appetite so its stomach must be stapled. At stake is the need to at least control the rate of growth in the recurring base. Thusly, I have introduced a constitutional amendment to cap the rate of spending of state government. Government would be limited to growth at an amount that would not exceed the rate of population growth plus the growth in personal income. Basically, government should not grow any bigger than it needs to be or any faster than people’s ability to pay for it…to read the full article

BTW, the above picture is not my belly, not yet.

World Magazine-Gene Edward Veith: Not so bright
If atheists think they are bright while the rest of us are stupid, their opinion will probably alienate the public more than their views on God.
Atheists are coming out of the closet. Today, some 5 million Americans claim to be atheists. Throw in agnostics and you have 20 million. Five books making the case for atheism have become bestsellers. The 9/11 attacks have sparked a backlash against “fundamentalism” of every sort, painting conservative Christians with the same brush as Islamofascists. Atheists would seem to be poised for growth, but they have a public-relations problem.

A University of Minnesota poll last year found that atheists were America’s most distrusted group. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 62 percent of Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist running for president.

As a result, atheists allege a whole host of slights, hostility, and civil-rights violations. And so many atheists are trying to do what homosexuals did when they pulled off one of the biggest public-relations coups in history, in part by rebranding themselves as “gay.” Atheists are calling themselves “brights.”

World Magazine-Gene Edward Veith: Not so bright
If atheists think they are bright while the rest of us are stupid, their opinion will probably alienate the public more than their views on God.
Atheists are coming out of the closet. Today, some 5 million Americans claim to be atheists. Throw in agnostics and you have 20 million. Five books making the case for atheism have become bestsellers. The 9/11 attacks have sparked a backlash against “fundamentalism” of every sort, painting conservative Christians with the same brush as Islamofascists. Atheists would seem to be poised for growth, but they have a public-relations problem.

A University of Minnesota poll last year found that atheists were America’s most distrusted group. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 62 percent of Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist running for president.

As a result, atheists allege a whole host of slights, hostility, and civil-rights violations. And so many atheists are trying to do what homosexuals did when they pulled off one of the biggest public-relations coups in history, in part by rebranding themselves as “gay.” Atheists are calling themselves “brights.”

The local Democrat Party is at it again. I’ll admit, they do a great job in creating their newsletters, but for the second time they single me out along with our great Congressman. On page 2, it says: …we need candidates for many different offices. In particular, we need someone to run against Gresham Barrett in the Third Congressional District and someone to run against Kevin Bryant in the SC Senate race…