For those of you who are completely fed up with the outrageous spending by our imperial federal government .... You might wanna wait to drink your coffee before you read this one. The Heritage Foundation has come up with a list of 50 examples of government waste. I picked out a few little gems, but here's where you can get the full list.

- The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

- Despite trillion-dollar deficits, last year's 10,160 earmarks included $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming; and $75,000 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.

- The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes.

- Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.

- Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.

Jamie Dupree also has an entertaining list of earmarks for agricultural programs. These are your tax dollars, ladies and gentlemen.

Well ... YOU consider them to be your dollars. Politicians don't look at it that way. This sounds a bit radical ... but trust me on this one. These looters in Washington consider every single penny of your wealth to be theirs. You, in fact, belong to them. You are allowed to work so you will produce. And you are allowed to produce so that you can fund government. In order to keep you producing the government has to keep you calmed down by allowing you to keep some of the wealth you produce. Here's where the balancing act comes in. Day after day; session after session; these so-called "public servants" are diligently working on finding just the right balance. How much earned wealth do they have to allow you to keep before you slide into open revolt? Are they pushing your limits yet? Just wait for the VAT!

Obama released the details of his budget yesterday. This disaster is 1,500 pages long. We can't afford the $3.4 trillion price tag. The money simply isn't there. Obama believes that the more money the federal government spends, the greater America becomes. This is the mindset of a man who believes that our greatness comes from government. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so in love with government as Barack Obama.

Oddly enough, the news today isn't that Obama is proposing spending $3.4 trillion. The media is all abuzz over the news that Obama has proposed cutting $17 billion in spending and completely eliminating some programs. Let's get real folks .. this $17 billion is just one-half of one percent of Obama's budget. Government spending has doubled in the past eight years ... and if all you can find to cut is one-half of one percent than you aren't worth a damn as an administrator or CFO.

What's more ... PrezBO's list of proposed budget and program cuts is less than the list put forth by George Bush proposed last year. Bush proposed $34 billion in savings. Now speaking of proposed spending and program cuts ... just because these cuts are proposed doesn't mean that they actually happen. In fact, half of Obama's proposed cuts are the very same ones that Bush tried to get nixed from the budget when he was in office.

Earlier this week I told you of news reports that the Obama White House was using the services of a behavioral psychologist for briefings on the way people react to large dollar figures. Interestingly enough, most people can't differentiate between $17 million and $17 billion. Once the numbers get that high they all bland into a numerical sameness. This means that Obama can propose spending $3.4 trillion and then propose $17 billion in savings and the people think that he is actually doing something incredible! Aren't you comforted by the idea that the president is hiring behavioral psychologists to help him pull the wool over your eyes?

Here is something to keep in mind. Posturing about spending cuts usually means nothing. Presidents generally roll out a long list of spending cuts. It's all for show. The cuts are generally ignored by Congress. So while he may tout the fact that he is proposing a cut of $17 billion, the chances of that actually happening are as slim as my chances with Angelina Jolie - and she's so covered with ink I don't think I'm interested anymore. Let's go with Allison Krause.

Here is something else to keep in mind. Even if Congress adopted these proposed cuts, it would not actually reduce government spending. In fact, Obama's budget is going to increase overall spending. So any savings that Obama may generate from these cuts will be used to pay for more government programs ... the ones that Obama wants to create, like government healthcare.

Amidst these proposed cuts, what gets an increase in federal funding??

The IRS. Yep, Obama wants to double the funds for the IRS to enforce tax laws. There's another $890 million of your tax dollars. Rather than spending more money to enforce a tax system that doesn't work and punishes achievement, how about implementing a new tax system that will allow the taxpayers to keep this money and allow businesses to bring jobs to this country without fear of being punished by the government.

Then there's endless examples of mindless government pork projects. While Obama's budget does seek to cut several education programs, (won't happen) there are a few other "educational" programs that were seen as worthy of maintaining their federal funding. One, for instance, is a $9 million program to promote the history of whaling and trade in Massachusetts.

Here's a list of all the programs that Obama is cutting in this budget. One of these cuts, by the way, is a 9% cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that's in charge of regulating unions. Gotta thank the people that put you in office.

Yesterday Barack Obama signed into law another $410 billion in spending. That's $410 billion of your tax dollars to fund projects like a boarding school for at-risk natives in western Alaska and tattoo removal programs for gang-bangers. This, my friends, is exactly what Barack Obama said that he stood against when he was asking the people of this country to give him this job. Oh how he hated pork, wasteful spending! Oh yeah! The Chosen One was going to veto any bills with pork in them. There was going to be change, by God, and it was going to be change you could believe in. That was then, this is now. Now he signs a budget bill with more than 8,000 pet projects into law. As he does so he stands in front of the American people - looks into his ever-present teleprompters - and says "OK ... I mean it this time. This is really the end, guys!"

Puhleeezzze.

PrezBO calls this budget bill "imperfect" Golly! Ya think? But he's ready with the excuse. This pork-filled bill is oh so necessary in order for our government to continue to function. NOW I remember! During the campaign Obama said he was going to kill pork UNLESS the pork was necessary for our government to continue to function. I'm getting it now!

You know what's happening here? People are starting to get the real picture. Hard as it is to believe, they are starting to catch on. Even some of the media is starting to get it. This guy was all talk during the campaign. Empty promises ... just like the rest of them. When it comes down to it, he was much better at being a presidential candidate that he is as a president.

I doubt it. What I'm talking about is the omnibus bill laden with 9,000 pork projects and government handouts. But there is buzz around Washington that the bill may not be as secure as some Democrats may have hoped.

Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez says that Republicans are within "striking distance" of bringing down the omnibus bill. Remember that the Democrats in the Senate need every vote, but Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold (both Democrats) have now said that they are going to vote against it. Hmm I wonder if they are up for re-election soon? But Democrats Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson are undecided at this point.

In other words .. support is slipping. Wouldn't a filibuster be a wonderful thing to watch?

It seems like every day I read countless stories about government's inability to do anything with efficiency or common sense. And it is your tax dollars that pay the price. So now, for your enjoyment, I have a few examples that I have gathered just from the last day.

-A middle school in California spends $10,000 a year to teach advanced Spanish to students who are already fluent in Spanish.

-Newspapers in Minnesota are getting a $238,000 grant to retrain their staffs on how to use the Internet.

-The federal government is going to fund a $5 million national media campaign to promote the benefits of married life to young adults.

-It took five Nebraska state employees to assemble a Sony PlayStation (bought by your tax dollars), which they then proceeded to play on state time.

-Remember the story about Clayton County bus drivers who were told to wear uniforms in order to prevent terrorists from hijacking school buses?? Clayton County decided to buck up $18,000 for the uniform shirts, but now refuses to pay $75,000 for the pants.

-And how about this $410 billion omnibus bill filled with 9,000 earmarks .. Jamie Dupree has an extensive list of earmarks, which you can read on his blog. But just to get you started, here are some other earmarks highlighted on Michelle Malkin's blog:

• $200,000 for "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program," pg. 283
• Maine lobster earmark in the omnibus, pg. 173
• $5.8 million earmark for the "Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate...for the planning and design of a building & an endowment," pg. 232
• and National Council of La Raza, $473,000 earmark from Sens. Bingaman and Menendez, pg. 212.

Aren't you glad that you have government to spend your earned wealth so wisely?

This giant excuse for a Democrat spending bill is shaping up to be conglomerate of earmarks. The problem is that they aren't being called "earmarks." Remember when Obama ran on a platform of transparency and earmark reform? Well he is dedicated to living up to that promise. So here's what happens ... the earmarks are still there, they are just called something different - "ready to go" or "shovel-ready" projects. All in the name of economic stimulus.

Changing the name of earmarks to "ready to go" projects. More Change We Can Believe In.

The AP reports that that Obama's ban on earmarks doesn't mean that interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't figure out a way to get their constituents their ration of pork. They will just figure out another way to do it. And by doing THAT, we have inadvertently made the process even more secretive.

Projects like a "disk-golf" course in Austin, Texas or a water park in Arkansas or dog parks in California ... as earmarks, these projects would have gotten money up front. But now what we are doing is giving money to these projects in the back end by just lumping them into one pile of "ready to go" projects. The money will be divided up based on arcane formulas outlined in the bill, and then the politicians, on the back end, will decide who gets what.

Lawmakers, lobbyists and local officials say that this stimulus plan actually makes it more difficult to pick out how exactly the hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent. Former mayor of Costa Mesa, California Peter Buffa says, "'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender ... It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."

Did we really think that our politicians were going to give up the power of pork barrel projects so easily? Yeah, I didn't think so. Remember that they have a history of re-labeling this type of spending. First it was earmarks, then pork, then Congressional directed spending, then stimulus, now they are "ready to go" projects.

Barack Obama has chosen former Republican congressman from Illinois Ray LaHood to be in charge of directing billions in federal highway spending through the stimulus package. The only problem is .. LaHood is known for his love of earmarks and has notoriously used his influence to get funding for projects that would benefit his campaign contributors.

Last year alone, LaHood sponsored $60 million in federal earmarks .. $9 million of which was directed to his campaign donors. He ranked in the top 10% of earmark sponsors in the House last year.

You can read all of the specifics as to where LaHood directed these federal funds, but it doesn't seem like a smart appointment for Obama considering his apparent dedication to transparency and earmark reform.

Yes ... I know that earmark pork only accounts for one percent of less of federal spending. It's not the amount. It's the fact that these politicians see the working taxpayers of this country - those few that are left - as not much more than funding machines for vote-buying projects in their districts. Enough.

Let's set the cast of characters. Mark Sanford is the governor of South Carolina. He is opposed to any sort of bailout for the states. James Clyburn is a Representative from South Carolina. He is the House Democrat Whip, making him the highest ranking black lawmaker in the House. Oh ... and Clyburn is a First Class Race Pimp. So Sanford and Clyburn disagree about what constitutes an earmark. James Clyburn says that any federal money included in the stimulus should be sent back home to lawmakers' districts. Sanford says that this is the same thing as an earmark, but without calling it an earmark.

And then Clyburn came out with this line about Sanford's opposition, "[H]e happens to be a millionaire ... He may not need help for the plantation his family owns, but the people whose grandparents and great-grandparents worked those plantations need the help" in the form of federal money.

Mark Sanford's response? Yeah, that wasn't a rational explanation as to why he is in favor of earmarks. "You're playing the race card as your way of trying to defend stimulus packages and deficit spending out of Washington, D.C."