Thaddeus McCotter (R ), representing Michigan’s 11th Congressional District, appears to be living a “dog’s life.” While he and our other political elites enjoy a fluffy omelet with hollandaise sauce we, the citizens of the United States of America, are getting a “dog’s breakfast.”
About a month ago Mr. McCotter introduced legislation to provide pet owners with a $3500 tax deduction for qualified pet-care expenses. With all of the major issues facing our nation why does Mr. McCotter expend legislative effort to provide the equivalent of ObamaCare for pets? Well perhaps this description is a bit over the top. After all, Mr. McCotter is not trying to nationalize the entire pet care industry, nor is he proposing to take your pet care away and redistribute it undocumented strays. Further, in contrast to President Obama, Mr. McCotter is proposing a tax break. Hmm… maybe I should tone down my criticism just a bit? I don’t think so! That this is a tax break rather than a tax increase is somewhat irrelevant to the issue at hand. It still remains that a Congressman should be focused upon critical issues rather his own pet project.
It rankles me anytime I see an official of our Federal government, regardless of political affiliation; meddle in affairs that are none of his business. Where in our Constitution does it say that Congress shall provide for pet care? Interestingly enough, Mr. McCotter is the sole sponsor of HR3501, also known as the Humanity And Pets Partnered Through the Years Act (HAPPY Act). It seems to me that this esteemed legislator has obviously misinterpreted the most widely known passage written in our Declaration of Independence. This passage states that we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not state that we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of HAPPYness.
As an advocate of limited government it is disappointing to see Mr. McCotter, a member of the political party that purports to oppose big government, introduce such a ridiculous piece of legislation. This legislation provides us all with a clear cut understanding of why a piece of legislation is referred to as a “bill.” The more bills that Congress passes the more bills the citizens pay. The general population should not be asked to subsidize pet care for their neighbors. What extraordinary public policy concern is addressed with this tax break? This situation reminds me of how the Republicans “screwed the pooch” when they controlled the purse strings and let spending get out of control. Republican Party leaders need to put a leash on members who have lost their way. The American People are looking for limited government, not a slightly smaller version of big government. Extra time spent paper-training now will prevent bigger messes in the future.
© 2009 LimitGovNow. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to LimitGovNow with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.