ADDRESSEE SELECTED TO REPRESENT STATE INDICATED IN NATIONWIDE BALLOT ON NEW GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES.

This was printed on the envelope that I received in the mail today. No return address. No indication of who had sent it. So I open the damned thing, and it's from the Heritage Foundation.

2009 TAXPAYER BALLOT ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

I started to go ahead with it, but things got weird, so instead, I decided to bring it here for a Fisk job.

2009 TAXPAYER BALLOT ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
1. According to The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, annual federal spending has more than tripled since 1965 and has nearly doubled since 1980. In general, do you think that the federal government is spending too much money?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Ummm ... yes?

What the fuck do they think we're going to say to this? Even most Donks will tell you there's too much spending. Their beef is with the kind of spending that's necessary to support the Constitution. If they could cut out the important stuff, they'd do it in a heartbeat, and only spend money on their stupid socialist ponzi schemes. In the meantime, even they say there's too much spending.

2. Are you concerned that unchecked spending is getting worse now that liberals like Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are in power?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Sure do.

However, it is undeniable that the likes of other liberals like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush paved the way for it to happen with their own out-of-control spending. At what point do we face the fact that there is no major party that represents our interests and move on? Republicans cannot be trusted to do any better, as they are as much a part of the conspiracy to wrest the people's power from them.

3. The number of pork projects in the federal budget skyrocketed from under 1,600 in 1997 to more than 11,000 in 2008. Cost to taxpayers: $17 billion in 2008. So far this year Congress has approved more than 8,500 earmarks - everything from a tattoo removal program to "grape genetics" - that cost taxpayers $7.7 billion. Does this level of pork-barrel spending meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
YES NO UNDECIDED

The number in 1997 was unacceptable. Nobody is saying that these earmarks are good, but what exactly does anyone suggest we do about it? Elect Republicans? Please.

4. Thanks to pork projects and Big Government budgets, the federal government will spend more than $25,000 per household this year - up more than $4,000 since 2001. Does this level of spending meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Umm ... no.

5. To finance their spending hikes, Congress is piling up enormous deficits. The federal government is already facing a $1.8 trillion budget deficit this year. Do you believe such a large deficit is fiscally responsible?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Umm ... The government running ANY deficit in peacetime is fiscally irresponsible, and there is probably more than enough money available at this point to support any wartime efforts at this point if you take out all the shit that the government should be divested of.

The next question nearly made me shit my pants:

6. Are you concerned that this wasteful government spending threatens our ability to reform and modernize truly important programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
YES NO UNDECIDED

TRULY IMPORTANT PROGRAMS SUCH AS SOCIALIST SECURITY AND MEDISCARE?!?!?!?!?!

You have got to be fucking kidding me. The Heritage Foundation just called Socialist Security and Medicare "truly important programs" that should be "reformed" and "modernized". I went back and read that again at least a half a dozen times. Yes, the paper does say "The Heritage Foundation" at the top, and yes, question #6 reads exactly as I quoted it.

For this, The Heritage Foundation will no longer be listed in the RWRepublic Links section. I will also be removing myself from all of their email lists. Heritage will never see a dime from my bank account, and will be treated from this point forward as the liberal Republican front organization they truly are.

This question shows that Heritage isn't really conservative after all, and reminds us that no matter how well someone presents himself or herself, whether as an individual or an organization, no one should be above scrutiny. Never assume conservative or liberal based on what you heard in the media or on some blog.

Of course, the only reform and modernization of Socialist Security and MediScare we need is to simply pass the job on to the private sector and the States and get the federal government out of it entirely. That is the ONLY conservative solution to the problems these programs have caused and the only one that is, for that matter, legal.

Rather than waste time with 7, 8, and 9, they were all fair questions to which conservatives would agree.

10. The Heritage foundation is working with members of Congress and in the news media to highlight specific proposals for stopping the waste of your tax dollars, and to target specific pork projects that should be eliminated. Do you support this constructive approach to curbing government waste and abuse?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Not really. If you are going to target only certain "pork projects" for elimination and keep others, such as Socialist Security and MediScare, you're barking up the wrong tree. What needs to happen is to bring in REAL conservatives who will eliminate pork and illegal government as systematically as they were created. That's not going to happen with the current crop of representatives or the media. The only way that happens is by supporting and electing people who will get the job done instead of these idiot Republicans and Democrats.

11. Heritage is educating Congress on the need to end taxpayer-funded corporate welfare that subsidizes CEOs and lorge corporations at the expense of families, seniors, and workers. Eliminating corporate welfare would save taxpayers some $60 billion each year. Does this plan meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
YES NO UNDECIDED

No.

This plan meets my definition of exploiting class envy. If you're going to do away with corporate welfare, why not do away with all the other illegal forms of welfare the US government engages in? You know what I mean. The ones that subsidize "families, seniors, and workers". The cold hard truth is that they are just as wrong and just as illegal as any kind of corporate welfare you can point to.

More proof that Heritage is in bed with the liberals in Washington.

12. Heritage is alerting Congress to the costly repetition in the federal budget, which features 342 separate economic development programs, 130 programs serving the disabled and 130 programs targeting at-risk youth. The Heritage plan to consolidate these programs would save taxpayers billions and do a better job of solving the problems these programs are supposed to address. Does such a plan meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
YES NO UNDECIDED

No.

It meets my definition of kissing liberal ass. Not a single program mentioned above is legal under the Constitution, and yet Heritage seeks to "consolidate" them instead of doing the right thing, which is to pass these ideas on to the private sector and the States, where a much better job would be done and the law would be followed.

With the Obama/Pelosi liberals now in control of Washington, The Heritage Foundation is unleashing a bold new campaign to expose and eliminate wasteful spending and trim the fat from the federal budget. This effort to rein in unchecked government spending and protect YOUR tax dollars depends entirely on the backing of grassroots taxpayers like you. Will you support this effort with a generous contribution today?

YES. I want to help Heritage fight for my interests as a taxpayer and STOP the epidemic of skyrocketing government spending. I'm enclosing:

$15 $25 $50 $100 $250 $500 Other $_____

Of course, nothing I contribute will be used to support real conservative candidates or the elimination of pork projects that Heritage thinks are ok (and these are some of the worst).

How about ...

No. I'm not sending you people a fucking dime, and you can take me off of your mailing lists as well. Heritage has now proven itself a front for the Republican Party instead of the conservative organization it has pretended to be.

"Important" programs like Socialist Security and Welfare? Eliminating corporate welfare without doing the same for other damaging forms of welfare? The Nazis supported something similar, in case you don't remember. Do we really want to be like them in this regard, especially where government dependency is concerned, and where our own law doesn't allow it?

When Heritage stands up to support the Constitution, we will talk.

RWR