Look at a couple of news articles that came out today. 

Seventeen of the nation's 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent....(news article here:   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html)

and

The Pentagon is $295 billion over budget on dozens of key programs and taking more time to deliver the systems to the front lines, according to a report released by a government watchdog agency.

(article here:  http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/01/pentagon.overspending/index.html)

Isn't it a pity we taxpayers can't check boxes to indicate where we would like our tax money to go?  Personally, I'd like to see this country spend more of its money on US CITIZENS and less on foreign wars and policies.  I'd like to see a President who stops facing across the Atlantic with his back to his own people struggling to make a living, teach their kids, and take care of their parents.  I'd like to see Congressional leaders who stop cherry-picking money and back-stabbing each other and start helping the average person/family in their state or district. 

Do you know how much MORE money we spend on foreign policy and war, than we do on our own citizens?

If I can quote from my previous blog on Federal Budget numbers:

How big is the federal budget allocation for the Department of Defense? In 2007, it is (requested) 439.3 billion dollars.

Or in other words, the Defense budget is 8.07 times larger than the Education budget.

The Defense budget is 6.50 times larger than the Health and Human Services budget.

The Defense budget is 43.50 times larger that the Department of the Interior budget.

The Defense budget is 60.18 times larger that the Environmental Protection Agency budget (a "cabinet-level"federal department).

I have a cousin who is a principal of an elementary school in the Bay Area.  Talking to her sister, I hear that she is tired and frustrated and out of money and working her a** off to try and get the basic necessities for her kids.  Her school doesn't have enough money for toilet paper.  Don't you think we should be spending more of our money on our schools?

Would you like to see what your money could buy? 

Check out:  http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

The site lets you pick a geographic area in the United States.  Then, you can see what the trade-off is of the cost of the war in Iraq versus things like elementary school teachers, public safety officers, or people with health care.

I can't vouch for the accuracy, but I think it is an interesting exercise.  A sad and futile exercise perhaps.  But interesting.

For example, if I pick the state of Hawai'i, and pick "total Iraq war spending approved to date" and pick "public safety officers" - I am told that - for the $1.7 billion that Hawai'i taxpayers have shelled out for the war, we could have had 38,760 public safety officers. 

Here in Maui, the news is that the police department is so backlogged with reports, they are still working to investiage automobile deaths (and possible criminal negligence) from 2006.  2006.  They are two years behind.  Not to mention how many crazy drivers are never pulled over around here.  How many police do we have patrolling?  In my opinion, not enough.

Can I have my money back?

Hmmmm....

Apparently economic analysts, and President Bush, do not get out to Maui much.  He is "unaware of predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/28/news/economy/bush_energy_policy/index.htm?cnn=yes

We here on Maui are already looking at $4 a gallon gas.  I just filled up the car since Mom is here visiting, and the car is actually being driven.  Our prices are $3.85, $3.95, and $4.05.  For some reason, Maui gas is even more expensive than Oahu gas, which is much more expensive than mainland gas. I'll have to take a picture on my next run out.  Everything is more expensive out here.  *sigh*

In 2007, President Bush and the U.S. Department of the Treasury Secretary Paulson announced the project Hope Now.  They were trying to help mortgage holders who are facing bankruptcy.   Paulson's statements about the project in December 2007 are HERE. 

Oddly enough, this do-nothing Congress that can't seem to find their way out of a paper bag have managed to push through an approximately 170-BILLION dollar "economic stimulus project."  Taxpayers may get $300 to $600 in the mail (plus $300 for kids).  Add that all together, and it will cost about $170,000,000,000.  How does this country pay for that?  Oh wait.  We don't ask those questions.

And today, Paulson announces Project Lifeline, which is supposed to give some homeowners an extra 30 days hold on foreclosure.  But, as the national news showed this evening with some real-life homeowners, a 30-day stall won't help a lot of people.  Paulson's latest statement is HERE. 

I suppose the big question is - Will these efforts help? 

Project Hope Now maybe has and will help.  Project Lifeline seems kind of lame.  From what I've heard, rebate checks will come too late to stave off a recession that economists feel has already started.  I for one probably will not go out and spend my tax rebate, if I get one.  I know that is what the federal government wants me to do to stimulate the economy.  Not save it.  Not use it to pay off debt.  But go out and buy more widgets, so that Widget Company can hire more widget makers, and so on and so forth and things of that nature.  Well, too bad.  I'm not a huge conspicuous consumer to begin with.

The other, though perhaps irrelevant question, is - Should these efforts be made at all? 

I'll admit I only took three economics classes in college.  I'm sure there are some sound arguments for the Federal government to bail out homeowners who took risky loans, or jumped at the chance to buy a home with no down payment.  But I don't know what those arguments are.  Maybe there is a chance a stimulus package will help.  But what does this teach the American consumer?  Go ahead and get in over your head? 

What lesson should consumers learn?  How about - don't get in over your heads, no matter the temptation and lures.  What efforts should the Federal Government make?  I think preventative action is better than reactive action any day of the week.  The Feds let the predator lenders hunt and catch.  They were too greedy, I think, to work to protect borrowers to begin with.  Now they are trying to save their behinds.  Is that worth spending $170 billion?  What example are they setting?  Ha!