My Tax Plan

Work with Congress, hopefully with Alabama Senator Richard Shelby (previous author of a Flat-Tax Bill) to establish a new United States Tax Code, establishing a nation-wide flat-tax on gross income.

Included in that legislation and new tax code would be some required definitions, such as definitions of an individual, definitions of a family, and definitions of a business and/or corporation. I recognize that defining a "family" is going to be a hot-issue, and quite potentially divisive. In reality, or legality, I don't think so, for a number of states already define this in their laws and tax codes, and since both the Federal and State Income Tax systems work side-by-side, I would hope to defer to each state to develop their own standard based upon the composition of their internal population because a one-size-fits-all does not work on the national level.

The family standard or definition must be one that is sound in judgement, while precluding abuses or potential manipulation of the system, in other words it must be based upon a familial-bond, as defined by State Code or Law. That definition must allow for the inclusion of the "concept" of the present "Head-of-Household" definition, whereby the familial-bond includes those families who are caretakers and caregivers of parents/grandparents within the residential structure or dwelling unit. That definition must also allow income of minor-children who are employed to be included in the family-income determination.

I have previously stated there would be NO deductions or exemptions within the new system, let me explain how that would be incorporated in My Proposed Flat-Income-Tax Proposal.

The Federal Government already has in place a standard by which they define the "Poverty Level" and many federal programs identify eligibility for Federal Assistance as an income up to and including two hundred percent (200%) of the Poverty Level, based upon family size. That 200-percent of the Poverty Level would be the baseline or foundation of the proposal.

The Federal Government also has in place two different standards for addressing cost-of-living. These are the General Service Administration's published rates for temporary duty per-diem rates for lodging and meals/incidentals; and the locality-pay standard used by many agencies of the federal government. Further investigation as to which of these would produce the greatest benefit for the American People will need to be determined, and it must be balanced with the obvious necessity of providing revenue for the federal government to operate.

Scenario #1-using GSA Per-diem rates. Go to Per Diem Rates and find the per diem rate for where you live. Note: The standard or baseline per diem is $77.00 for lodging and $46.00 for meals and incidentals, or a total of $123.00. Also note: that some areas may have "seasonal" rates because of various tourism issues, find the per diem rate that exists over the majority of the year for your area.

Now divide the sum of the lodging and meals/incidentals amount by $123.00. That will give you a decimal figure of between 1.00 and 2.00.

That resultant number becomes your Adjusted Tax-Exempt Family Income.

Scenario #2-Using the Federal Employees Locality Pay Adjustment. Go to SALARY TABLE 2012-GS and find the GS pay grade and step that is as close as possible to your minimum tax-exempt income. Write down that annual salary rate.

Now go back to 2012 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables and find where you live (metropolitan area), you may have to find it at Locality Pay Area Definitions. Once you find your locality pay area/region, go to that area's table, and find the same GS pay grade and step you did above. Now divide this new GS pay grade and step, which includes locality pay, by the number you found above and wrote down.

This number will not be less than 1.00 and most likely will not be over 2.00 either. Take this dividend and then multiply it by your minimum tax-exempt income, to get the Scenario #2 adjusted minimum tax-exempt income. This value will most likely be less than using the GSA Per Diem Rate Scenario, because just like when on vacation, your living expenses, are generally higher than when you are at  home.

Which looking at it, just "may" be the path I pursue in my tax plan. But anyway, either set of results shouldn't be more than about $5,000.00 in differnce.

Now again, this only applies to "Income". Which presently is a very broad and widely contested subject as well.

So here's my initial view point on Income:
Income would be defined as:

a. Wages, salary, tips for services provided, (i.e., Employment for which you received a statement from your employer at the end of the year on how much they paid you, like Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.)

b. Any "profit or gain" made over and above the amount of an original investment or purchase price, that is not rolled into a replacement investment or purchase of the same type within one year.

c. Income for a "family unit" includes any income from "a" or "b" received by all members of the family unit residing in the residence on a permanent basis, which shall be defined as more than six months of the calendar year.

"Income" does not include funds or property received as an inheiritance from a family member who has passed away, essentially eliminating the so-called "Death Tax".

"Income" does not include benefits received from Social Security (regular and/or disability) or the Veterans Administration as Disability.

Any gross income over the adjusted minimum tax-exempt income would be taxed at a rate of ten (10) percent. By taxing at the gross income over the adjusted minimum tax-exempt income, the long-term result in my position would be that any and all retirement benefits paid would be tax exempt, since as part of your gross income while working, they have been taxed.

As an example, where I live in Geneva County, Alabama, the GSA's per diem rate is the "standard per diem", meaning no locality based increase, and there is no salary adjustment for locality. Therefore, the national standard of poverty, times two (2) (which equals two-hundred percent of the poverty level) would be the basic amount of tax free income for an individual or family. Monterrey County. California has one of the higher GSA per diem rates in California at $134.00 for lodging and $71.00 for meals and incidentals for a total of $205.00 per day. The "standard" rate is $77.00 for lodging and $46.00 for meals and incidentals, for a total of $123.00 per day. Thus the Monterrey County per diem is 167% of the national standard. Whereas the Federal GS-4 Step 1 salary in Monterrey County is approximately 135% higher than the baseline Federal GS-4 Step 1 salary. That said, the poverty-level guideline for a family of four is $23,050.00, which makes the 200% benchmark at $46,100.00. Adjusting that benchmark for cost-of-living equates to either $76,987.00 using the GSA-calculation; or $62,235.00 using the Federal Locality Pay-calculation.

Therefore due to "cost-of-living" a family of four here in Geneva County, Alabama would have it's first $46,100.00 of annual income, non-taxable, and that same family of four if living in Monterrey County, California would have either it's first $76,987.00 or $62, 235.00 of annual income as non-taxable. Income above that amount would then be taxed at a Flat-Rate, which initially I'm thinking to be 10%, but that will require to be reviewed.

As for businesses and corporations, I would have to thoroughly review the Supreme Court's decision pertaining to Citizens United, to fully identify and understand their definition of a "corporate-person" and if the various definitions of a "family" as determined by individual states, conflict or not. As a starting point, I'm working under the "assumption" that they do not conflict, and that a business or corporation, while they may be a "corporate-person" do not meet the basic definition of a familial-relationship, and as such all gross-earnings of a business or corporation would be taxed at a Flat-Rate of 10%.

Future of Non-Profit's
Operating a federally recognized 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit, I understand how important that tax-exempt status is for receiving donations and being able to function, as well as providing or performing the viable service that many do for the general public. Obviously if we proceed as above, and abolish the existing Tax Code, there would be no tax-exempt organizations. However, as I also stated, many of these provide and perform viable services for the community, that the government cannot or does not provide.

Many years ago, the so-called "standard" for purchasing a home, was that the monthly-mortgage should not exceed twenty-eight percent of your monthly income before taxes. Also, years ago, my grandmother, suggested to always pay myself first by trying to put at least ten-percent of my net income into some form of savings for long-term, as well as the frequently-called "rainy-day-emergency-fund". Then there are those in society, who believe that they should also provide a portion of the "fruits-and-labor" towards the betterment of their society, whether that be through their place of worship or into social programs, often the "accepted" amount is also ten-percent (10%).

So based upon the preceding paragraph, you have 28% for housing expense, 10% for personal savings, and then we'll say 10% for the betterment of society, which leaves essentially fifty-two percent (52%) of income to go towards other expenses such as food, clothing, utilities, transportation, insurance, etc. Is that a viable perspective? I'm not totally certain, but based upon today's economy for many individuals it is not. However that is not to say that a minority of the population, such as the upper-level income earners could not achieve such a break-down.

Let's look at the proposal in light of the above family of four in Monterrey County, California using the lower $62, 235.00 of annual income as non-taxable. That equates to a monthly non-taxable income of $5186.25. At twenty-eight percent for housing costs, that equates to $1452.15. Now to add in $518.63 (rounded to nearest penny) for personal/family savings, and another $518.63 towards society improvement, that leaves $2676.84 of non-taxable income towards other basic living expenses. Again, I don't know if that is truly viable.

If we look at that in terms of here in Geneva County, Alabama, you have the base-line $46,100.00 of non-taxable income. That equates to a monthly non-taxable income of $3841.67. At twenty-eight percent for housing costs, that equates to $1075.67. Now to add in $384.17 (rounded to nearest penny) for personal/family savings, and another $ 384.17 towards society improvement, that leaves $1997.66 of non-taxable income towards other basic living expenses. Viable?

As a Service-Connected Disabled Veteran, my non-mortgage expenses equal roughly sixty-percent of my income. However, that does not take into account that I can't put ten-percent into a rain-day fund, nor do I put another ten-percent into the community, financially. Instead, I do what I can by investing my time, playing the organ at church services weekly, for which it is strictly volunteer service, in addition there is the time, energy, labor, and costs associated with maintaining the grounds where we host a Native American Gathering, and the grounds around the Native American Veterans Memorials, including the only memorial dedicated to the thirty-two Native American Recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

William M. Silaghi

Regarding Healthcare Access and Insurance .............

Some questions I have for those interested in commenting, as I said over the weekend, I'll be working on my proposal for healthcare.

Congress, through Obamacare, injected itself in the business of healthcare, through the creation of a tax, they call it a fee, Supreme Court Chief Justice called it a tax, which was the only was it is Constitutional.

The Federal Government presently manages directly or indirectly:
* healthcare for active duty and retired military through DOD or Tricare;
* healthcare for veterans with service-connected disabilities through the Veterans Administration;
* healthcare for members of Federally-recognized Native American, Native Alaskan and Native Hawaiian tribes, nations or clans, through the Indian Health Service;
* healthcare for those collecting Social Security or Social Security Disabiilty, through Medicare; and
* healthcare for Federal Employees through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and contracted with various insurance companies.

Also, I'm pretty sure, there is a "federal-program" that provides children of families on welfare, of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, medical services for those children only through, I think they are, contracted providers.

Here's the rub, I'm having with this issue ....
* Who licenses doctors and nurses? Each state.
* Who licenses hospitals? Each state.
* Who licenses insurance companies? Each state.

According to the U.S. Constitution, what are the limitations placed upon Congress pertaining to Commerce?

The Commerce Clause, Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, grants Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. The commerce power is an enumerated power of Congress and the Supreme Court has interpreted it as an express grant of authority to Congress and an affirmative limitation on the rights of the states to regulate commerce within their own borders. Commerce Clause – The Commerce Power of Congress

While "the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. But in doing so, Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion appears to have placed new limits on Congress’s ability to regulate interstate commerce. Will this make future federal legislation harder to enact? Or does Congress still, in theory, have the power to make everyone buy broccoli? That’s a key question legal scholars are now mulling as they pick through the decision. by Brad Plumer on June 28, 2012 at 12:58 pm

"In its decision Thursday, five justices, including Roberts, ruled that the health reform law’s requirement for all Americans to purchase health insurance runs afoul of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Basically, the court ruled that Congress can regulate existing interstate commercial activity, but it can’t directly force people to enter into a market (by, say, requiring them to purchase health insurance). “The power to regulate commerce,” Roberts wrote, “presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated.”"

"This subtle distinction between regulating activity and inactivity is one that libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett had developed and pushed into the mainstream. It’s a new concept. Yet for the purposes of the Affordable Care Act, it ended up not mattering. Roberts ruled that the individual mandate was akin to a tax — Americans can either purchase health insurance or pay a fine through the IRS. And, since taxes are perfectly within Congress’ powers to levy, the law was upheld."

Here is another perspective. Individual states issue driver's licenses, based upon your residency within that state; however the Federal Aviation Administration issues pilot's licenses, based upon the National Airspace System is under Federal Jurisdiction. However the Federal Government also I believe has some licensing authority when it pertains to long haul trucking, which I assume falls under the "Interstate Commerce" clause.

Now as I understand the Supreme Court's decision, "if" the fine/tax provision were not in the bill, it would be unconstitutional. Correct?

Further, I know at one time there was a major issue pertaining to Congress attempting to direct or mandate a National Driver's License, and establish minimum requirements for obtaining it; but I believe it did not make even through or to a vote, because they realized it could not pass the "Interstate Commerce" clause of Congress' Powers by the Constitution.

So the first question, I guess, is Healthcare "by law" a State-right issue or is it or can it be a Federal issue?

Second question is "Wasn't Healthcare "de-regulated" in the past, like the telephone companies monopoly, resulting in all the baby-bell's or Aetna of California, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, etc.?"

In light of the above two questions, the Supreme Court's decision, "Can there be a true "Federal" Healthcare System, beyond what is already provided, as I enumerated at the begining of this post, and beyond the scope of Affordable Care Act?"

Or, "Can Congress, in conjunction with the systems at the begining, create an 'Amercian Citizen Health Benefits Program' sort of a "government-type insurance that is a mixture of the programs, but available to all American Citizens? And then should it get into the Healthcare business or leave it to the states?"

---

Now what I would like to see, but not certain how to accomplish it would be to in some manner set a "pricing-cap" or regulatory process to control costs.

I would think with all the data the Federal Government collects on everything from paper-clip use to cow-fart-methane, they should have a set of statistics pertaining to various healthcare costs; such as office visits, the various procedures, xrays, etc.

Along those lines of statistical information, the to create a "benchmark" of healthcare costs, that would then be indexed by what I addressed in my post about income taxes, such as using the Federal Employees Locality Pay variance from the basic General Scale pay rate. In otherwords, taking here for example, we in this portion of Alabama would pay say $25.00 (Example only) for a basic office visit. In Monterrey County, California, where I believe the pay differential was 1.6, then in Monterrey County, you would pay $40.00.

Further as with everything, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to healthcare, only those services you use or need. So I would think a system that provides a basic level of service, WHICH, I believe should include Vision and Dental care, as part of the basic package. Then you have the yearly option, like the federal employees open-season to change plans, to add services, such as pre-natal and post-natal care, adding mental health care (to include substance abuse and recovery), etc.

Now on a rather "explosive" topic, I personally do not believe in abortion, except in the cases of rape or incest; HOWEVER, I believe that coverage for birth-control, contraception (including abortions) can be a part or should be a part of the Opt-In services provided under pre-natal and post-natal care. I would also agree with the inclusion of contraceptive measures, including abortion ONLY in the cases of rape or incest to be a part of the basic coverage. That would be in my opinion under emergency services; beyond that, i.e., "I don't like using condoms, or spermacides, or my boyfriend/husband couldn't keep his pecker in his pants" ... that's under the opt-in service of pre-natal/post-natal care. ... But I am sincere, when I say in the case of rape or incest, that should be an emergency service covered by all insurance.

Now I'm sure the extreme-evangelical Christian Right will have a problem even with those caveats in place, but by providing an "Alternative Insurance" such as the American Citizen Health Benefits Program, it allows them to keep the basic provisions they have for their members or employees who wish to "stay in line with church teachings" while at the same time presenting an option for those who may be a little more liberal in their beliefs.


In advance, please no flaming barbs or remarks, as I am honestly really trying here to get some good input as well as adopt a mid-of-the-road balance that more than that 47% percent Romney couldn't reach, can be satisfied with.

Thanks.
Bill 

Mitt Romney and the 47%

    

Who are the 47%? The US in percentages map

Mitt Romney says 47% of the US population doesn't pay taxes and are people he could 'never convince … to take personal responsibility and care for their lives'. The US has become a land of percents: the 1% v the 99%, the 8% unemployed or the 15% in poverty. 

A breakdown of those alleged 47-percent

• 36% with no tax liability
• 15% are actually in poverty
• 13% are over 65 years of age
• 15% are on Medicare
• 16% are the medically uninsured
• 8% are unemployed
• 7% are veterans

I guess that makes me the Candidate for that 47%

....or at least that Conservative Portion of that 47%, and hopefully a vast majority of that percentage and more of the American People. Governor Romney's statement may alienate enough people from the Republican Party as well as Independents that make this "Grass-Roots" campaign and "Social Media" campaign a successful reality.

My plan, though still under development

#1 ... Revoke, rescind, remove the present United States Tax Code, Tax Laws, etc. from the federal system, including the closing of the Internal Revenue Service.

#2 ... Work with Congress, hopefully with Alabama Senator Richard Shelby (previous author of a Flat-Tax Bill) to establish a new United States Tax Code, establishing a nation-wide flat-tax on gross income. 

• Included in that legislation and new tax code would be some required definitions, such as definitions of an individual, definitions of a family, and definitions of a business and/or corporation. I recognize that defining a "family" is going to be a hot-issue, and quite potentially divisive. In reality, or legality, I don't think so, for a number of states already define this in their laws and tax codes, and since both the Federal and State Income Tax systems work side-by-side, I would hope to defer to each state to develop their own standard based upon the composition of their internal population because a one-size-fits-all does not work on the national level.
• The family standard or definition must be one that is sound in judgement, while precluding abuses or potential manipulation of the system, in other words it must be based upon a familial-bond, as defined by State Code or Law. That definition must allow for the inclusion of the "concept" of the present "Head-of-Household" definition, whereby the familial-bond includes those families who are caretakers and caregivers of parents/grandparents within the residential structure or dwelling unit. That definition must also allow income of minor-children who are employed to be included in the family-income determination.
• I have previously stated there would be NO deductions or exemptions within the new system, let me explain how that would be incorporated in My Proposed Flat-Income-Tax Proposal.
• The Federal Government already has in place a standard by which they define the "Poverty Level" and many federal programs identify eligibility for Federal Assistance as an income up to and including two hundred percent (200%) of the Poverty Level, based upon family size. That 200-percent of the Poverty Level would be the baseline or foundation of the proposal.
• The Federal Government also has in place two different standards for addressing cost-of-living. These are the General Service Administration's published rates for temporary duty per-diem rates for lodging and meals/incidentals; and the locality-pay standard used by many agencies of the federal government. Further investigation as to which of these would produce the greatest benefit for the American People will need to be determined, and it must be balanced with the obvious necessity of providing revenue for the federal government to operate.

As an example, where I live in Geneva County, Alabama, the GSA's per diem rate is the "standard per diem", meaning no locality based increase, and there is no salary adjustment for locality. Therefore, the national standard of poverty, times two (2) (which equals two-hundred percent of the poverty level) would be the basic amount of tax free income for an individual or family. Monterrey County. California has one of the higher GSA per diem rates in California at $134.00 for lodging and $71.00 for meals and incidentals for a total of $205.00 per day. The "standard" rate is $77.00 for lodging and $46.00 for meals and incidentals, for a total of $123.00 per day. Thus the Monterrey County per diem is 167% of the national standard. Whereas the Federal GS-4 Step 1 salary  in Monterrey County is approximately 135% higher than the baseline Federal GS-4 Step 1 salary. That said, the poverty-level guideline for a family of four is $23,050.00, which makes the 200% benchmark at $46,100.00. Adjusting that benchmark for cost-of-living equates to either $76,987.00 using the GSA-calculation; or $62,235.00 using the Federal Locality Pay-calculation.

Therefore due to "cost-of-living" a family of four here in Geneva County, Alabama would have it's first $46,100.00 of annual income, non-taxable, and that same family of four if living in Monterrey County, California would have either it's first $76,987.00 or $62, 235.00 of annual income as non-taxable. Income above that amount would then be taxed at a Flat-Rate, which initially I'm thinking to be 10%, but that will require to be reviewed.

As for businesses and corporations, I would have to thoroughly review the Supreme Court's decision pertaining to Citizens United, to fully identify and understand their definition of a "corporate-person" and if the various definitions of a "family" as determined by individual states, conflict or not. As a starting point, I'm working under the "assumption" that they do not conflict, and that a business or corporation, while they may be a "corporate-person" do not meet the basic definition of a familial-relationship, and as such all gross-earnings of a business or corporation would be taxed at a Flat-Rate of 10%.

Future of Non-Profit's

Operating a federally recognized 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit, I understand how important that tax-exempt status is for receiving donations and being able to function, as well as providing or performing the viable service that many do for the general public. Obviously if we proceed as above, and abolish the existing Tax Code, there would be no tax-exempt organizations. However, as I also stated, many of these provide and perform viable services for the community, that the government cannot or does not provide.

Many years ago, the so-called "standard" for purchasing a home, was that the monthly-mortgage should not exceed twenty-eight percent of your monthly income before taxes. Also, years ago, my grandmother, suggested to always pay myself first by trying to put at least ten-percent of my  net income into some form of savings for long-term, as well as the frequently-called "rainy-day-emergency-fund". Then there are those in society, who believe that they should also provide a portion of the "fruits-and-labor" towards the betterment of their society, whether that be through their place of worship or into social programs, often the "accepted" amount is also ten-percent (10%).

So based upon the preceding paragraph, you have 28% for housing expense, 10% for personal savings, and then we'll say 10% for the betterment of society, which leaves essentially fifty-two percent (52%) of income to go towards other expenses such as food, clothing, utilities, transportation, insurance, etc. Is that a viable perspective? I'm not totally certain, but based upon today's economy for many individuals it is not. However that is not to say that a minority of the population, such as the upper-level income earners could not achieve such a break-down.

Let's look at the proposal in light of the above family of four in Monterrey County, California using the lower  $62, 235.00 of annual income as non-taxable. That equates to a monthly non-taxable income of $5186.25. At twenty-eight percent for housing costs, that equates to $1452.15. Now to add in $518.63 (rounded to nearest penny) for personal/family savings, and another $518.63 towards society improvement, that leaves $2676.84 of non-taxable income towards other basic living expenses. Again, I don't know if that is truly viable.

If we look at that in terms of here in Geneva County, Alabama, you have the base-line $46,100.00 of non-taxable income. That equates to a monthly non-taxable income of $3841.67. At twenty-eight percent for housing costs, that equates to $1075.67. Now to add in $384.17 (rounded to nearest penny) for personal/family savings, and another $ 384.17  towards society improvement, that leaves $1997.66 of non-taxable income towards other basic living expenses. Viable?

As a Service-Connected Disabled Veteran, my non-mortgage expenses equal roughly sixty-percent of my income. However, that does not take into account that I can't put ten-percent into a rain-day fund, nor do I put another ten-percent into the community, financially. Instead, I do what I can by investing my time, playing the organ at church services weekly, for which it is strictly volunteer service, in addition there is the time, energy, labor, and costs associated with maintaining the grounds where we host a Native American Gathering, and the grounds around the Native American Veterans Memorials, including the only memorial dedicated to the thirty-two Native American Recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

William M. Silaghi

Budget: US National Defense & Security .... continued

I closed the preceding post with the following two paragraphs:

I believe we could save a great deal of military dollars and lives, if the Department of Defense, were just that a National Defense Force, and not an offensive weapon of politicians. There are a number of intergovernmental assets that could be combined to provide border, airport, port and coastal security, and at less cost than we are putting forward today. We also need to review our own internal status of forces, and review the implications of the Posse Commitus Act. The March 2009 event here in Samson, Alabama, is evidence of that, when you have rural sheriff department and police departments that are understaffed, and a situation occurs, and they ask for assistance from the nearby military base in a mutual aid agreement.

Think about it, when you have National Guard, Air National Guard, Homeland Security, FEMA, Customs and Border Patrol, DEA, etc., all with various unshared assets that if administered properly could meet not only the day to day national security and defense needs of the country, but also humanitarian aid during natural disasters. A better budgeting can be done.

From the Department of Defense's own website, I quote:

The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country. The department's headquarters is at the Pentagon.

and ...

Today, the Department, headed by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, is not only in charge of the military, but it also employs a civilian force of thousands. With over 1.4 million men and women on active duty, and 718,000 civilian personnel, we are the nation's largest employer (emphasis mine). Another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces. More than 2 million military retirees and their family members receive benefits. 

Now the Department of Homeland Security states it's mission as:

The Core Missions
There are five homeland security missions:

• Prevent terrorism and enhancing security;
• Secure and manage our borders;
• Enforce and administer our immigration laws;
• Safeguard and secure cyberspace;
• Ensure resilience to disasters;

Is it just me, or do others see a number of overlapping missions and/or roles just between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security?

Elsewhere I have commented that this Administration as well as preceding administrations have use the Armed Forces of the Untied States, like their own version of the "Foreign Legion" (no offense to the French or their Foreign Legion forces intended). Anyone who has gone through basic military training in any of the United States' service branches, recalls that the middle-portion of "basic" (after they take away your individuality) is to indoctrinate you into the "purpose" the military exists. Before continuing let's look at that Oath of Enlistment required by federal statute in 10 U.S.C. § 502:

10 USC § 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. 

What is the first clause of that solemn oath?   "I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;". The Constitution of the United States of America, that is the ultimate allegiance sworn to by every enlisted member of the United States Armed Forces.

The Second clause of that oath reads, "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Sadly, in my opinion the closing caveat phrase seems to be often ignored, "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

One source usmilitary.com has the following to say (in part) about "Obeying Orders."

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.
Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

continuing ....

So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime. 

Getting back on topic - Budget: US National Defense & Security 

When you look at all the agencies, departments, bureaus, administrations, etc., operated by the Federal Government that provide a service or mission of border, port, airport, airspace security or sovereignty, shouldn't they all be under one organization? Since World War II and the creation of the present Department of Defense, the common practice of Administrations and Congress, when one organization gets too large, their solution is to break it up into separate groups and agencies or departments. Now if according to the Department of Defense's own website, that if DOD is the nation's largest employer, you don't have to be a rocket-scientist to deduce that actually the entire federal government is truly the nation's largest employer.

While it will be no easy undertaking, and it will cost many senior level government employees their positions, I will make it one of my priorities as President to consolidate agencies, departments, and organizations within the federal government that perform the same or similar mission into one cohesive, compact, but mission effective and efficient organization. I guess in many ways you might call a new version of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission on steroids, because I intend to take it federal government wide, and not only within the departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

We do live in a world that is different from 1947 when our present defense infrastructure was established. The United States of America just like nearly every nation on this planet is facing tough financial times and hardships. We can no longer continue spending as if on a lobster and champagne budget, when all we really can afford based on income and revenue is a burger and shake.

We must also revisit the United States Code, that amalgamation of laws enacted by Congress and signed into Law by the President, and review, revise, and re-write, as necessary. One in particular that comes to mind is in combination with the revision to DOD/DHS is The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and amended in 1956.

From the United States Northern Command website:

The Posse Comitatus Act
Section 1385 of Title 18, United States Code (USC), states:
“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
The PCA does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard in peacetime or to the National Guard in Title 32 or State Active Duty status. The substantive prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) were extended to all the services with the enactment of Title 10 USC, Section 375. As required by Title 10 USC, Section 375 the secretary of defense issued Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, which precludes members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps from direct participation in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
The PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement activities. Some of those law enforcement activities would include interdicting vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities. Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military’s role in domestic affairs.
The United States Congress has enacted a number of exceptions to the PCA that allow the military, in certain situations, to assist civilian law enforcement agencies in enforcing the laws of the U.S. The most common example is counterdrug assistance (Title 10 USC, Sections 371-381). Other examples include:
•The Insurrection Act (Title 10 USC, Sections 331-335). This act allows the president to use U.S. military personnel at the request of a state legislature or governor to suppress insurrections. It also allows the president to use federal troops to enforce federal laws when rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S.
•Assistance in the case of crimes involving nuclear materials (Title 18 USC, Section 831). This statute permits DoD personnel to assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding nuclear materials, when the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies.
•Emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (Title 10 USC, Section 382). When the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies. DoD personnel may assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
Military support to civilian law enforcement is carried out in strict compliance with the Constitution and U.S. laws and under the direction of the president and secretary of defense.

Why do I believe such a revision is necessary?

On March 10, 2009, active duty U.S. Army Military Police troops from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama in response to a murder spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance nor did President Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received "administrative actions."

• Army reviews shows troop use in Samson killing spree violated federal law

•  Revolutionizing Northern Command

This happened here, near where I live, and I heard the events unfold on my radio scanner that afternoon as I was preparing to go to our regular American Legion meeting. I will not forget what I heard that tragic day. Whether in accordance with PCA or not, one must recognize and understand the situation and conditions here in this part of Alabama.  The City of Samson has five members in its police department, including the Chief of Police. City-data.com reflects that in 2007 the Police Department's monthly payroll for those five members was $20,639.00.  Also City-data.com reflects for 2002 the Geneva County Sheriff's law enforcement budget was $947,000.00 annually, for which there are thirteen full-time employees.

As I would assume to be the case in many small-town and rural counties in America, most law enforcement organizations have mutual-aid agreements, just as the many volunteer fire departments have mutual aid agreements. Yes, I recognize there is "protocol" for everything, but that does not make it right. At that time I was also the District Commander for the American Legion's 35th District of Alabama, and my wife and I attended five of the six funerals of our neighbors and fellow citizens. This link will take you to a BBC-America article about that day, the top picture is that of Sheriff Deputy Josh Meyers, who lost his wife, Andrea Dawn Myers, 31, and daughter Corrine Gracy Myers, 18 months, that day.

The approximate path that Michael Kenneth McLendon took that day from Kinston, Alabama, through the City of Samson, through the City of Geneva, to his final suicide at his former place of employment on the City of Geneva's North side covered approximately 26 miles, which under normal driving without stops takes about 35 minutes. The soldiers from Fort Rucker performed only the duties mentioned above traffic control and security at the temporary morgue site, in order to allow Samson Police and Geneva County Sheriff Deputies to do their jobs investigating and securing evidence, as well as attending to victims.

Our present system is not perfect

We still have a great deal of situations and issues that need improvements. But this is an article about Budget. We just passed the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001 and we are still fighting a war, alleged to be about terrorists hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and now allegedly having spread to the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa. We have seen the cost in the lives of too many American Men and Women, both military and civilian, as in the most recent case of Ambassador Stevens. Just what is our mission there? Are we there now to exterminate the Taliban? or Al Qaeda? How many terrorists must we kill before the mission is over? How many innocent women and children must die as "collateral-damage" from American-drone strikes?

A Time for True Military Policy Change

The Cold War is over. Where is that illusionary Peace-Dividend that we were supposed to experience when it ended? I will share with you an old recurring dream/vision from the late 1980's.

The Speech "The Speech" is the second of the three dreams or visions. It takes place in a large hall or auditorium. I am not certain of its location completely, as to whether it was within the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives or whether it was within the chambers of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, or elsewhere. The uncertainty rests in there were many government officials and dignitaries from around the world in attendance and there were as nearly as many flags around the perimeter of the auditorium, as well as the United Nations logo on the wall behind the dais, as well as the American flag. I would conjecture that since I have been inside the UN General Assembly chambers as a high school senior, and have yet to visit the halls of Congress, that the likely location was at the United Nations building. I do not recall what the circumstance or occasion for my speech was other than before starting I was sitting in a small room just behind the dais, and very nervous about how what I was about to unload on the audience would be received. I recall remembering a part of a tape by David Reber when he was asked about publicly speaking before large groups of students. His reply was, "Lord you see these butterflies in my stomach, make them fly in formation one more time. Amen." Mr. Reber was a Viet Nam Veteran and had on many occasions before becoming an evangelical speaker said those same words. I recited those words as I heard President Ronald Regan introduce me to the audience. It was an eerie feeling walking out into the auditorium, as a mere mortal citizen, not a government official, and having the heads of state, government officials and other dignitaries from around the world standing and applauding my entrance. Reaching the platform President Regan greeted me with a handshake and then a hug. I then turned to the audience and waved a polite greeting. Faces I seemed to recognize were: Mikhail Gorbachev, Fancios Mitterand, Margaret Thatcher, Arial Sharon, Yassar Arafat, Momar Qadafi, Sam Nunn, Vice President George Bush, Strom Thurmond, Joseph Biden, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and others whom faces I recognized from television news. I began my speech quoting General Douglas MacArthur's speech from the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri, September 2, 1945, at the end of the United States war with Japan, closing World War II. "Men since the beginning of time have sought peace," but "military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn have failed, leaving the only path to be by the way of the crucible of war." Now "we have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be for the spirit if we are to save the flesh." This was met with a standing ovation. I continued, "My fellow citizens of the world, I am not a government official, nor a highly acclaimed scholar, nor a philosopher, nor a theologian, just a brother in the human race. We are a very diverse human race, with belief, value and moral systems that are as countless as the grains of sand on the beach. We have a choice before us. We can allow that diversity to be a strength to us, or it can be a dividing wedge that further separates us. The answer lies within each of us as brothers and sisters in humanity. For it will be of the spirit if our diversity is to be our strength, but it will be of the flesh that will further divide us. Since I wish to see unity among all peoples, it is that in which I shall speak of today."
 "My brothers and sisters, within many of our countries we have recreational, university and professional team sporting events. And while the participants are members of a team, they each have varying roles and responsibilities. A soccer team is not made up of or consist of all goalkeepers, there are forwards, mid-fielders, and halfbacks or defensemen. And while any member of the team can likely play in the role of any position, the coach puts them in a role or position that will benefit the team as a whole." "To those of you here who are heads of state, or government officials, you are charged with dual roles. For you are like as coaches to your countrymen seeking to beneficial matters of your people. But on the global scale, you are also players upon a team, maybe even more than one team by treaties and alliances." "To my knowledge, do not all cultures have the precept of something such as 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' or as the Christian Bible teaches 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' This is a spiritual condition of the human race. All civil law is but an expansion of these things. Our human race has sought to clarify this intent down to the smallest detail. Why? Because of our own flesh, greed, and lust, to be better than someone else." "Many of your are now or have been parents. I ask you to pause for a moment and consider the life of an infant between two and five years of age. They my brothers and sisters are the purest and innocents of the human race. For they know not the teachings or dogmas of our adult world. I ask you also to consider especially those regions where the crucible of war has been spilt upon the ground. Does the infant or toddler care of such things? We can and must learn from your children, they do not hate! Yes, they may get angry and even fight with one another over who plays with what toy; but when the fight or argument is over, are they not back playing together as friends in a short time?" "Some of you may be silently asking, 'But what of our ways, our teachings, or our instructions to go out into the world and spread our truths?' I say, Fathers, how do you teach your sons to farm the fields or work on the family automobile? Mothers, how do you teach your daughter to cook or take care of the household or sew? Do we not teach our children by setting an example for them to follow? We teach them in a loving manner. We do not merely use words, nor do we beat them into submission to teach them. They learn by our example and the experience of doing. It is the loving example by which we teach that becomes the attraction and driving force in their learning to be like their parents." "Consider your own lives for a moment. What was or is the greatest lesson or task that you have learned? Was it learned by following someone's example and then doing it yourself? Or did you learn it from having it beat into you? Or did you learn it without first experiencing it?" "My brothers and sisters, we stand here at the crossroads of the existence of the human race. The path we take this day will chart the course of human events that lay yet before us and all of humanity. It will not be an easy journey, I will guarantee you that much. What I will guarantee, however, is that if we can recognize the strength within our diversity; if we can do unto others as we would have them do unto us; if we can allow our own example of life to be the attraction or guide post … we can and will one day live in a world filled with peace and love. A world where a person is measured by their strength of character and integrity, and not by the color of their skin, their creed or any other such thing." "In the theme or thesis of loving our neighbor as ourselves or doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, I must question the practice of the last two thousand years or more of waging religious wars. As I eluded to just moments ago, it is the power of attraction that draws others to experience and share in what we have, NOT the power of oppression or the fear of terrorism. For what I ask do most teachings give us? Is it not better to die in love of our neighbor, our fellow human being and walking the path of truth; than it is die in attempting to persuade others through the use of force or terrorism? For while both maybe considered as martyrs, is it not better to die as a martyr living in love and defense of the truth; than to die as a martyr oppressing the freedoms of our fellow human beings to further our own beliefs?" "In closing, we are all gathered here today for a purpose. I do not believe that any of you present are here against your own will or were forced to be here. You came because you wanted to. You came because something within you was curious about what would be said here today. The presence of so many heads of state, government officials and other honored guests, suggests one thing. The current state of world affairs is not working. My brothers and sisters, the power to change the course of human events dwells within each and every person alive. That power is not something of magic. The power I speak of is the power of love. It is manifest though acceptance and tolerance of beliefs, values and the moral codes of others, and respects that we are all individuals free to choose what we shall hold as our own personal truth, regardless of what our neighbor holds as their personal truth. Lastly it is the understanding that through diversity the human race has strength. Walk in Peace, and Love. Thank you." Finished speaking, the auditorium erupted in a loud ovation. As is the custom of such gatherings of leaders, there was a reception in which I spoke to many of those leaders present, yet we spoke not through interpreters, but directly. During which, many invited me to their own countries to speak before their houses of government and assemblies of people. The vision ended as I was on an airline flight back to California, from as I said could only presume to be New York City. I was sitting there on the airplane, looking out of the window as Mother Earth and the fluffy white clouds passed beneath us. I sat there pondering the experience of the speech and reception. I had spoken my truth to the leaders of the world and they had accepted it, possibly in politeness, yet many had invited me to their countries to share my message with their people. Looking out the window, I smiled and said, "It is good." Then the vision ended.

As I state above, "The current state of world affairs is not working. My brothers and sisters, the power to change the course of human events dwells within each and every person alive. That power is not something of magic. The power I speak of is the power of love. It is manifest though acceptance and tolerance of beliefs, values and the moral codes of others, and respects that we are all individuals free to choose what we shall hold as our own personal truth, regardless of what our neighbor holds as their personal truth. Lastly it is the understanding that through diversity the human race has strength."  This is what we must not only build the defense of our great nation upon, but also build the economy of our nation.

God Bless the United States of America
William M. Silaghi

The Budget & U.S. National Defense and Security

Samson, AL - Over the past ten years, we have all witnessed the stories in main-stream-media, as well as some have witnessed first hand, through deployment of their loved ones to the Middle East and Southwest Asia since the events of September 11, 2001.

What has this so-called "War on Terrorism" cost the United States of America, besides the legs, arms, and lives of many American men and women? The reports vary in amount and depend on circumstances I guess, but I do recall that former President Bush requested $89billion in supplemental funding, only to be followed by another similar amount request a few months later.

Osama bin Laden, and his second, third, and maybe fourth in command are now dead. At what point will the present policy end, and we bring home our men and women? Are we trying to exterminate Al Qa'eda, the Taliban and other such groups? I have seen the interviews, and the "potential" of threats that this group and that group present. I have also read reports on what another Katrina would do to the Gulf Coast, or what would happen if the Yellowstone Super volcano erupted.

I was not the Commander-in-Chief when these American Men and Women were deployed, and therefore I do not have all the facts and military intelligence the Commander-in-Chief did, so I can not and will not comment on their initial or continued deployment. Our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, family members and neighbors are overseas serving their country in the Armed Forces. One problem I see however, is having a "Commander-in-Chief" who has never served on Active Duty in the Armed Forces. Having served in the Untied States Air Force, even though I never left the United States, nor was I in combat, as an air traffic control specialist, I still experienced the basic military training, some may call it brainwashing, to which .... whatever. The fact is that every man and woman serving took the same Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Here let me quote General Douglas MacArthur, "I find in existence a new and heretofore unknown and dangerous concept, that the members of our armed forces owe primary allegiance or loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch of the government rather than to the country and its Constitution which they are sworn to defend." Here lies the rub. MacArthur could not accept the authority of the President of the United States. His repeated disobedience and interference in foreign policy could no longer be tolerated. While the cunning political fox, FDR, either ignored or out maneuvered MacArthur's defiance, the Buck Stops Here President would not tolerate it. In essence, MacArthur had posed a challenge to one of the fundamental principles of American government - civilian control of the military.

Whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm, or the present conflicts/wars to which we are now engaged in; the military must be given a clear and concise mission, and then be allowed to complete their mission tasking. Do not tell them to do something and tie one hand behind their backs.

For too many years now that military that is to support and defend the Constitution, has in effect been played as a pawn by those holding the Office of President and to further that Administration's Foreign Policy. If they are going to continue to be used in this manner, then maybe we had better revert to their former designation under the Department of War, or follow the lead of the French, and call the the American Foreign Legion, instead of Department of Defense. Yes, I understand the whole Peace through Strength scenario, but I'm also aware of the civility and necessity of when lethal/deadly force is necessary. As I have said publicly and written elsewhere, you don't make friends by beating them into submission with a baseball bat.

We are in a strange and different era, than our parents were at the end of World War II. Wars are no longer fought alone battle lines and trenches, you are no longer up-close and personal like in the movie The Last Samurai. Instead you maybe anywhere from a few hundred yards to thousands of miles away from the person you kill. And why?  Because they have a different belief or ideological system than we do in America?

Let's face it, I don't think that Russia or China have a desire to dance toe-to-toe with the American Military, any more than we have to dance toe-to-toe with them. Between the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans I think they can take care of regional incident flare-ups just fine. Just as the European-NATO members and Russia can handle incidents in that part of the world; and how between the United States, Canada, and Brazil and even possibly Venezuela with a carrot and stick approach we can address the Americas. We can not afford to continue to try and be all things to all Peoples. Let us work with our neighbors here in securing the Americas, including eliminating drug cartels, and providing emergency humanitarian aide here.

As President, I would ask the members of the Joint Chiefs for an alternative, somewhat returning to the original concept of one maybe two, Rapid Deployment Forces, these would be the front line troops used when American Interests, and not resources of Mother Earth in another country were at risk. I would seek that Air National Guard and Army National Guard units were just that remained home, defending America, and not being the bulk of the American Military. We have already drawn down some of our foreign bases, and honestly I believe we can drawn them down further.

I believe we could save a great deal of military dollars and lives, if the Department of Defense, were just that a National Defense Force, and not an offensive weapon of politicians. There are a number of intergovernmental assets that could be combined to provide border, airport, port and coastal security, and at less cost than we are putting forward today. We also need to review our own internal status of forces, and review the implications of the Posse Commitus Act. The March 2009 event here in Samson, Alabama, is evidence of that, when you have rural sheriff department and police departments that are understaffed, and a situation occurs, and they ask for assistance from the nearby military base in a mutual aid agreement.

Think about it, when you have National Guard, Air National Guard, Homeland Security, FEMA, Customs and Border Patrol, DEA, etc., all with various unshared assets that if administered properly could meet not only the day to day national security and defense needs of the country, but also humanitarian aid during natural disasters.  A better budgeting can be done.

Budget & Finances .... re: foreign spending

Samson, AL - In a preceding post I quoted an article from Channel 2, in Washington, D.C.  The article for what ever purpose, was skewed and did not include all of the relevant facts.


The message points to a State Department document that lists recipients of the U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation Awards in 2010. According to the State Department website, the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation "provides direct grant support for the preservation of cultural sites, cultural objects, and collections, as well as forms of traditional cultural expression, in eligible countries around the world." U.S. ambassadors nominate projects to be funded.
But the program isn’t the brainchild of President Barack Obama. The program was created by Congress in late 2000 under President Bill Clinton, and the first grants were announced under President George W. Bush in 2001. The State Department says that, in total, the fund has contributed nearly $26 million to approximately 640 cultural heritage sites in more than 100 countries, and more than half was given before Obama took office.
It’s true that mosques are among the cultural sites that have received grant money under this program. But temples and churches around the world also have received funding, contrary to AFA’s claim that the "secular left" would be upset if "these monies had been spent to repair Christian churches." When we searched the State Department’s database and lists of 2009 and 2010 projects for "mosque" and "minaret," we found that 30 mosques or minaret restoration projects had received funding under Bush, and seven such sites had been funded under Obama. Also, 29 projects for churches and cathedrals were funded under Bush and 13 under Obama. Those totals do not represent all Christian or Islamic historical and cultural sites, however — our search for "mosque," for instance wouldn’t pull up funding for an Islamic monument or conservation of ancient manuscripts, and our search for "church" didn’t pull up restoration of convents or monasteries. Plus — as anyone who has visited the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul or the Mezquita, a mosque and cathedral in Cordoba, Spain, could tell you — there are many ancient sites that were Islamic and Christian places of worship at different points in time. In fact, our searches of "mosque" and "church" both pulled up the $33,455 awarded to the 14th century Mosque of Old Dongola in Sudan, which was a church in the 9th century. And one of the "cathedral" projects in Uganda under Bush was the documentation of "historic buildings," including "cultural sites, unique architectural designs, cathedrals, Hindu temples, mosques, state buildings and ancestral homes," according to the State Department database.
The AFA e-mail points out that the State Department gave $76,000 to help restore a 16th century mosque in China in 2010 (the amount was $76,135), but it doesn’t mention that the document it links to also lists $72,600 that went to an Episcopal basilica in Macedonia to help with the conservation of early Christian frescoes. AFA says that a mosque in Pakistan got $67,000 — actually it was $67,500 — but doesn’t mention an $81,990 grant for "Restoration of the Late 17th‐Century Church of the Icon of the Mother of God of the Sign" in the Russian Federation, or $94,827 to restore a high altar and cloister of an 18th century convent in Guatemala City. Among the State Department’s "large grants" is $625,000 for the Church of the Holy Redeemer in Turkey.
The AFA says that the Associated Press reported on this program to fund cultural sites, including mosques. And the AP did report in August that "the Obama administration will spend nearly $6 million to restore 63 historic and cultural sites, including mosques and minarets, in 55 nations, according to State Department documents." But that article cast the mosque-funding as "part of the U.S. government’s efforts to reach out to the Muslim world," and the AP said the amount spent on Muslim sites was a "fraction of the total" given to worldwide cultural sites.

Thank you Lin on EarthBoppin.net  for posting the update on this. However, whether it is just mosques, or mosques, churches, aquaducts, steeples, towers, etc., since when did the US spend funds on foreign antiquity sites, when we have our own national parks and historic sites falling into disrepair, not to mention being closed because of budget cuts.??? 

WMS in 2012 ................Budget & Finances

Samson, AL - I guess I almost forgot to say in the original post ...... I'm announcing a third party, or more accurately an independent run for President of the United States of America. While presidential candidates usually have millions of dollars behind them in backing not to mention their own personal wealth, kind of like that Allstate Insurance TV commercial, I'm running this on a Ramen-Noodle budget.

Since this spring we have witnessed events like the Arab Spring, or even before that we've witnessed the Deep Water Horizon Disaster, Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Plant Disaster, and many other things through the advent of modern Social Media networking. I recognize that running for the White House costs mega-money, as well as it's very unlikely that the Democrats or Republicans will even seriously consider me a contender without a great deal of support by the general population throughout the country.

First of all let me say, that as long as we have Americans who are in need of food, medical care, and adequate housing, the American budget must be focused on Americans. That includes the budgets of all cabinet level departments. Which brings me to a story I just found out about today ....

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that the State Department is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas. This investment has received criticism as the United States makes an effort to slash nearly $4 trillion in government spending.Plenty of outrage following the announcement made Thursday afternoon by a government commission that suggested huge cuts to the budget, including eliminating the interest education for home mortgage. This juxtaposed with the United States investing millions to refurbish mosques as a good-will effort in Muslim countries has upset many taxpayer groups.

I don't know about you, but this is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

If by my widest imagination we should be successful and I am elected as President, my first endeavor will be that Congress must pass a balanced budget. We can no longer afford to keep borrowing money from foreign governments and banks, and turn around and send that money overseas as American Aid Dollars. I know that will not be popular among corporations, banks and foreign nations, but the fact of the matter is that America and her citizens come first. Yes, I surmise that places a big target upon my back, or head to many foreign powers. Tough, or in the words of the former World Wide Entertainment wrestler and now actor "The Rock" ..... "JUST BRING IT!"

Whether it's American's in our inner cities, the suburbs, or our own 1st Nations Indigenous Peoples on American Indian Reservations, they deserve the hand-up long before anyone on foreign shores. So here is notice, "If the American People choose to elect me as their President, every dime of foreign aid will be severely scrutinized, and gone are the days of America buying foreign governments military equipment with American Tax Dollars or borrowed currency from abroad."

I am not saying that America will not be there with a helping hand in times of Natural Disasters. However since World War II, the United States of America has been around the globe, many times, shedding the blood of her men and women to deter aggression upon other nations. We have been accused of hegemony, which may or may not be true, but I would choose to believe we were there to defend basic human rights and freedoms, and not tell others how to run their own nation. For we Americans have our own share of domestic policy black-eyes and bad-karma if you will, we don't need to accept that of other nations too.

Many years ago, now the Senior Senator from Alabama, Richard Shelby, presented legislation resulting in basically a flat tax for all Americans. I am going to ask Senator Shelby if I am elected to reintroduce that legislation, but that it will not only address individuals and families, but all businesses and corporations doing business in the United States. What that flat-tax percentage will be, I'm not entirely certain at this point, however I'm thinking somewhere in the area of ten-percent (10%). Further there will be NO business or corporate exemptions or deductions, but for individuals or families, I am proposing that if you make less than 200-percent of the poverty level, adjusted locally for your area based upon a deviation/change percentage of the existing Government Services Administration's per-diem rate, you pay zero federal income tax. Any income over that adjusted 200-percent of the poverty level, will be taxed at the flat tax rate.

So for example, here locally in the Samson, Alabama area, if a federal employee were sent here on a temporary duty assignment that required them to stay overnight in a motel or hotel, they currently would receive the standard federal per-diem rate for lodging, meals and incidentals. Therefore a family of four here would have their first $46K and change (twice the poverty level) as federal tax free income. Whereas say, Napa Valley, California, your federal per-diem rate is about 75% higher than the standard rate; so because of the higher cost of living, that family of four would have $80,500 federally tax free.

This same adjust 200-percent of the poverty level, would be the benchmark for eligibility for all federal assistance programs as well.

Secondly, Congress can not continue to spend your hard earned tax dollars, on projects and programs that do not provide any return on the investment. I will ask Congress for Line-Item-Veto authority to be incorporated the the balanced budget act. In addition I will ask Congress for legislation that terminates Congressional retirement benefits, and special health-care plans that members of Congress and Federal Employees receive, that everyday citizens are not privy to. In short, Congress shall enact no legislation that affects American Citizens, that does not effect members of Congress or Federal Employees; and they shall not grant members of Congress or Federal Employees, benefits, not available to American Citizens. All existing federal retirees shall be grandfathered under this legislation, but Members of Congress shall not. Serving as a Member of Congress is an Honor and Privilege, and NOT a career!

Third I will direct the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a parallel Federal Government Audit of Federal Trust Funds authorized by legislation to a similar audit conducted by the Congressional Budget Office. The results of these audits will be published for all American Citizens to see, just where their gas tax, airline ticket tax, and other taxes which were enacted for the purpose of trust funds to improve America's roadways, airports, ports, rivers, and seaways.

Fourth, effective with my Presidency, all Federal Trust Funds for infrastructure improvements as well as the Social Security/Medicare Trust funds shall be off-budget items, NO MORE ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL.

Five, I will seek legislation or initiate legislation that Congress shall not enact legislation requiring state funding of federally mandated programs. In other words you legislate it, you fund it, and you will not deficit spend any longer.

Let's face it, nearly every American adult has to live within a budget commensurate with their income and resources. We all have to balance our checkbooks, so should Congress.