Sherlene: Citizens' State of the Union Address, "I Thought I Was Giving, I Worked Productively To Give What We Call Taxes"
There are many taxpayers and politicians that are disgusted with the current mishaps of our government's administrative offices. Some are arguing, right now, that funding allocations are not getting to the many citizens who are in need. I think that we should receive, ourselves, such dollars so that we can measure whether we do a better job of financial education--of our needs, building our economics in our communities, and our wants--than government agencies and internal staffers. Such staffers are not accountants or bookkeepers, they are spenders for things that they feel is necessary for our government to run on an everyday basis.
The government agencies that have not accounted for the budget money that their office was given to disburse are--
1. $21 trillion displaced from government-wide of itself that no one knows what happened to the money, from 1985 -2015.
2. Some leaders of administrative offices said that several million dollars of the $21 trillion were given to the Pentagon for international wars and other military services (nationally and abroad).
3. Other leaders have said no the money actually was given to the Housing Urban Development (HUD).
4. Ben Carson, the current leader of HUD, did an audit of the agency when he first accepted the job. He expressed his concern that there needs to be an overhaul of money given to HUD. He felt, at the time, that his agency was receiving too much money for the total customer population of all of HUD's programs (be it mortgages or rental assistance programs).
5. During the government shutdown, Pelosi commented that now Carson can't explain how his office's budget dollars were spent. All that is constantly discussed is military and HUD and their dysfunctions. Are there not any other agencies to discuss? across the board?
I personally think that we need all occupations or skill-sets working in government. If there is a Democratic president, fine. If such president and his administration want to give all the dollars during her/his term to welfare and programs to help low-income individuals and families, fine. As families know, you still must set a budget and try to follow it best as possible. How much did you spend on this program or that program? How much did the equipment cost to do the job? Things like that. When you have such records, you will be able to determine if you could find material items cheaper somewhere else. Or maybe you can use a different contractor or vendor. Simply because you work for the government doesn't mean that you can just spend like crazy for the things that are necessary to keep our government running. Having said that, can you ever spend enough on helping families to sustain in our local communities? Have we enough money to do just that, or is it time to allow more dollars in aiding families of today?
Lyndon Johnson created most of the welfare programs that are still functioning today. He noticed that he would give help to the west coast (places like California), then it would be the south that needed help. It seemed to him, even then, that there wasn't enough money to go around. He was always concerned that he wasn't giving enough for citizens, for taxpayers--where the majority of our country's people were simply not earning enough to match the majority of everyday, basic needs. If we didn't recover from such challenges then, what about today's economy where there are either low-incomers or high-incomers? Where is the consistency of being a part of the middle-income level?
Job seekers get a job, then to only be laid off from it. Such actions cause a family to be right back in the low-income status which causes further reliance on welfare programs: that need to readily available for such mishaps. We need all programs; we need the food stamps programs; we need housing assistance programs; we need programs when there is an emergency in this country. I am preaching some might say, but when a crisis happens, and these programs are shut down, what will we have, huh? Like money, when such programs are eliminated, when they are gone, they are gone, families. I want you to understand that. Currently, according to the Poor Peoples Campaign, there are over 140 million U.S. households that are classified as being a part of the low-income base. Of that 140 million, 44% are actually in my home state (2.6 million families). And 53 cents for every dollar that is spent is towards our military and maintaining our military bases, and providing basic necessities to our troops and their families.
Lastly, I must admit that I use to ask families "well, how productive are you with your current household's budget?" Or, have you labeled or recognized your needs vs. wants? Unfortunately, the way things are going, economically, it doesn't matter whether you have a household budget or not. People are working harder, with no way of working more productively. If rent in this country is getting more expensive, nationally, how are you suppose to tell individuals and families that you should cut back on your wants vs. your needs when they are already doing so? Where are the one, full-time job with benefits vs. the many hourly jobs without benefits? If a family is paying 75% of their total income towards rent, what's left over after buying food, buying gas to go to work, maintaining the vehicles to get to and from work? Nothing. That is why, I am really interested in this idea of rent control for all, nationwide. My nonprofit's program, which I am trying to introduce or bring to the State of Maryland, is simply equivalent to grant money that doesn't have to be paid back. A housing fund lottery that simply giving housing checks to all who apply. A housing lottery where it doesn't matter if you are homeowner or renter who is in need. As more affordable housing is being built, rent rates are ridiculous! Where are those rental units or rooms for a couple of hundred dollars a month instead of a couple of thousands of dollars today?
"Citizens of this country, I will need your help, and God's." -Lyndon Johnson, former president
The government agencies that have not accounted for the budget money that their office was given to disburse are--
1. $21 trillion displaced from government-wide of itself that no one knows what happened to the money, from 1985 -2015.
2. Some leaders of administrative offices said that several million dollars of the $21 trillion were given to the Pentagon for international wars and other military services (nationally and abroad).
3. Other leaders have said no the money actually was given to the Housing Urban Development (HUD).
4. Ben Carson, the current leader of HUD, did an audit of the agency when he first accepted the job. He expressed his concern that there needs to be an overhaul of money given to HUD. He felt, at the time, that his agency was receiving too much money for the total customer population of all of HUD's programs (be it mortgages or rental assistance programs).
5. During the government shutdown, Pelosi commented that now Carson can't explain how his office's budget dollars were spent. All that is constantly discussed is military and HUD and their dysfunctions. Are there not any other agencies to discuss? across the board?
I personally think that we need all occupations or skill-sets working in government. If there is a Democratic president, fine. If such president and his administration want to give all the dollars during her/his term to welfare and programs to help low-income individuals and families, fine. As families know, you still must set a budget and try to follow it best as possible. How much did you spend on this program or that program? How much did the equipment cost to do the job? Things like that. When you have such records, you will be able to determine if you could find material items cheaper somewhere else. Or maybe you can use a different contractor or vendor. Simply because you work for the government doesn't mean that you can just spend like crazy for the things that are necessary to keep our government running. Having said that, can you ever spend enough on helping families to sustain in our local communities? Have we enough money to do just that, or is it time to allow more dollars in aiding families of today?
Lyndon Johnson created most of the welfare programs that are still functioning today. He noticed that he would give help to the west coast (places like California), then it would be the south that needed help. It seemed to him, even then, that there wasn't enough money to go around. He was always concerned that he wasn't giving enough for citizens, for taxpayers--where the majority of our country's people were simply not earning enough to match the majority of everyday, basic needs. If we didn't recover from such challenges then, what about today's economy where there are either low-incomers or high-incomers? Where is the consistency of being a part of the middle-income level?
Job seekers get a job, then to only be laid off from it. Such actions cause a family to be right back in the low-income status which causes further reliance on welfare programs: that need to readily available for such mishaps. We need all programs; we need the food stamps programs; we need housing assistance programs; we need programs when there is an emergency in this country. I am preaching some might say, but when a crisis happens, and these programs are shut down, what will we have, huh? Like money, when such programs are eliminated, when they are gone, they are gone, families. I want you to understand that. Currently, according to the Poor Peoples Campaign, there are over 140 million U.S. households that are classified as being a part of the low-income base. Of that 140 million, 44% are actually in my home state (2.6 million families). And 53 cents for every dollar that is spent is towards our military and maintaining our military bases, and providing basic necessities to our troops and their families.
Lastly, I must admit that I use to ask families "well, how productive are you with your current household's budget?" Or, have you labeled or recognized your needs vs. wants? Unfortunately, the way things are going, economically, it doesn't matter whether you have a household budget or not. People are working harder, with no way of working more productively. If rent in this country is getting more expensive, nationally, how are you suppose to tell individuals and families that you should cut back on your wants vs. your needs when they are already doing so? Where are the one, full-time job with benefits vs. the many hourly jobs without benefits? If a family is paying 75% of their total income towards rent, what's left over after buying food, buying gas to go to work, maintaining the vehicles to get to and from work? Nothing. That is why, I am really interested in this idea of rent control for all, nationwide. My nonprofit's program, which I am trying to introduce or bring to the State of Maryland, is simply equivalent to grant money that doesn't have to be paid back. A housing fund lottery that simply giving housing checks to all who apply. A housing lottery where it doesn't matter if you are homeowner or renter who is in need. As more affordable housing is being built, rent rates are ridiculous! Where are those rental units or rooms for a couple of hundred dollars a month instead of a couple of thousands of dollars today?
"Citizens of this country, I will need your help, and God's." -Lyndon Johnson, former president