Friday, November 25, 2011


Better than two years ago, in February of 2009 a new protest group turned up on the scene. They carried signs protesting the so-called stimulus plan that we now know has failed miserably. This group attended holiday functions and started their own protests. In addition to their signs they carried the American flag as well as signs from Revolutionary War period that said "Don't tread on me".

They attended town hall meetings put on by various politicians across the country, challenging the politicians to explain their backing of the stimulus plan and the bailouts of banks and insurance companies. It expanded into protests of the proposed health care takeover. When politicians tried to ignore the questions by giving rambling answers that obfuscated the question or just ignored the question altogether, they were challenged by their constituents and forced to either give an honest answer or they were booed by their own constituents at their meetings, and sometimes, their honest answer revealed their true disdain for their citizens and they were booed for that. This led to the largest turnaround in elections since the 1920's, in the 2010 elections.

There were very few incidents of violence, although some accusations of events. Eggs thrown at a Tea Party bus in Nevada. The occasional poster of Obama as a witch doctor, or the joker (which was also done to President Bush). Most of the incidents and violence that took place came when the politicians brought in the unions and started restricting the town hall meetings and led to the use of telephone town hall meetings where the policians wouldn't have to face their own constituents.

These Tea Party protests were the people of this country complaining that the government was giving money to certain segments. The takeover of health care. The confiscation of General Motors and turning it into Government Motors and selecting who would get stimulus money. Protesting the failed cash for clunkers.

Now we know that the stimulus money has gone for "green" companies, and those that supported Obama, and of course, who can forget the money given to teach men in Africa how to bathe after sex.

In October of 2011 a new group has emerged. First they were called Occupy Wall Street.  Now they are called "Occupy ..." whatever city they protest in. What do they want? They want FREE college education. They want FREE health care. They call themselves the 99% and those that have money as the 1% and call for the 1% to pay higher taxes.

To think about this logically, you have to ask why they would want anyone to pay higher taxes. After all, they want free health care. So why would they be calling for higher taxes? If the health care is free, nobody should have to pay any taxes. After all, the health care is "free". They want free college education. Why do they need anyone to pay more taxes if the education is "free"?

It reminds me of Governor Granholm in Michigan a few years ago. She had the State of Michigan provide "free" laptop computers to all 6th grade students in the state. The plan was stopped a year later saying that the state couldn't afford the "free" laptops. It must be really bad when they can't afford something that's "free".

These Occupy.... groups have been camping out in parks such as Zuccotti park in New York. It's not a public park where they'd at least have an argument about their right to assembly and their right to protest. It's a private park that they've taken over, violating the law by not leaving when the park closes and not leaving.

The protests have been marked by violence. Women and children being raped and even men being raped. Protestors defacating on police cars. Their personal hygiene may be suffering because they don't bathe. Head and body lice has become a real problem there.

They have threatened to burn down Macy's, and now are saying that they are going to disrupt the largest shopping day of the year on black Friday by protesting outside businesses. The protests haver turned violent with clashes with the police across the country.

The Occupy crowd has recently been complaining. They aren't just complaining that they are having clashes with police, but they are complaining about the homeless. Not because there are homeless, but because there are groups that support them that are providing them with food and the homeless are showing up and eating that food.

They aren't complaining about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is heavily involved in the meltdown of the housing markets. They are complaining about the millions in bonuses paid to Wall Street executives. They aren't complaining outside the White House over the stimulus money paid to Solyndra to delay their bankruptcy filing until it's convenient for the Obama administration, they are complaining the upper 1% of income earners aren't paying as much in taxes, even though the upper 1% pays the bulk of the taxes in this country yet say nothing about the 47% of the people aren't paying any taxes, but actually receive money on their tax returns from the government.

It's quite a comparison between the two protest groups. The Tea Party was complaining about too much government and allowing the people to remain free and unencumbered by restrictions of government while the Occupy crowd wants the government to provide them with everything so they don't have to work for what they get. The Tea Party wants to work for what they get, while the Occupy crowd wants the government to take away from those that earn their pay and give it to them.

The Tea Party protestors worked during the day and protested on their own time at meetings and weekends while the Occupy crowd has camped out for nearly two months on private property (owned by the rich) and had sex with anything that moves of any age or sex and craps on government vehicles.

The really odd thing is that the Tea Party has been accused of being anti government while they were protesting too much government while the Occupy protestors are wanting the government to provide everything while abusing private property, government property and each other. I wonder if they've noticed that the government has no integrity and is broke.

You're welcome to comment.


Thursday, October 13, 2011


Please accept my apology:
The Obama Administration has been trying to apologize for the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the family of Samir Kahn, the number two man killed at the same time as Anwar Al-Awlaki and offered the countries condolences for his death.

President Obama wanted to visit Hiroshima and apologize for the United States dropping the bomb that helped end WWII, but Japan said it was a non-starter. What's wrong with this picture? We offer to apologize for ending a war 65 years ago and the country that we defeated is refusing to allow us to apologize. Japan is not refusing it out of anger for us beating them.

Mr. President, if you really want to apologize, apologize to the American people for the mess you've created with your plans that have failed. I'm not sorry some terrorist is dead. But I am sorry that more aren't dead.

Lack of stimulation from the stimulus:

An airport received stimulus funds and used it to add to a terminal. Now it's completed and the ramps don't reach the airplanes. I should be fair here. Some of them do. But some of them don't. They aren't sure what went wrong and why they won't reach. Here's a hint guys. Your designers failed 8th grade math! Perhaps the ramps just need to be stimulated to reach. Maybe you can convince the White House for a little more stimulation.

Where's the complaints about high pensions on this one?:

In Illinois, at least 8 union officials are retiring with pensions totaling at or near $500,000 per year! One of these officials took a leave of absence from his $44,000 per year job to work for the union. He will now rake in over $400,000 per year from the job he took the leave from, and the union. Yet the "Occupiers" are complaing about Wall St. bonuses, bailouts of banks and investment companies and the press complains about the huge pensions from corporations for their CEO's when they leave their jobs. Why are they not complaining about these Union officials? Or maybe it's okay because the Union officials represent the "working man" while the CEO's represent the corporations and are not "working men". Can you say double standard?

Halloween is Dangerous:

In San Francisco, the city is requiring a man to take down his haunted house claiming it's too dangerous. Let's see, it's a haunted house, intended to scare people on a day designed to scare people. It's been there for seven years and they are only now just discovering it. The failure seems to be on the city's part for not doing their job for seven years to protect the people from being scared walking into a dangerously put together haunted house for one day each year. Apparently, in the seven years, nobody has been injured. Nobody has been frightened so badly that they've needed medical attention and nobody has complained about it, in fact, many have visited it each year. I wonder if they get that many showing up at city hall and if those that do visit are scared by what the city officials are doing to the citizenry.

Kill list:

The government supposedly has a "kill list"? Apparently, some are upset that Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered because he wasn't brought to trial and he's American born. He's recruited the man that shot over 30 people at Fort Hood, as well as the man that tried to blow up the plane over Detroit with the bomb in his underwear and he was hiding out in Yemen after broadcasting that he's part of al-queda. I think if there is a hit list or kill list, I can agree with the Obama Administration on this one. I might consider stopping when we've killed 3,000 terrorists to make up for the 3,000 Americans killed on September 11, 2001. But I'm more inclined to keep killing until we've killed more than we lost on that day as well as all of the brave soldiers that went and gave their lives to fight the war on terror. If Hillary wants to apoloize to the families of those terrorists that we kill, let her use her home phone and pay her own phone bill. I don't want my tax money going to apologize to anyone that hates this country and certainly not to anyone that wants to kill Americans.

Olive Garden refused to allow American Flag:

A kiwanis group wanted to hold their meeting at an Olive Garden Restaurant. Part of their meeting is to have the American flag and to pledge allegiance to it. The Olive Garden refused saying it would disrupt the "dining experience". The kiwanis members were upset, but still held their meeting. They just told their membership to close their eyes and imagine a flag blowing in the wind as they recited the Pledge.

I'd have done something different. I'd have gone out to their parking lot, held the meeting and ordered the food from the Big Boy down the road and had it brought down to the parking lot to eat. Let Olive Garden honor their commitment to have the group there for their meeting, but not darken their doors nor partake of their food. If I go to an Olive Garden now, I'll make sure I have the American Flag proudly and clearly displayed on my suit, my jeans, my shirt or whatever I'm wearing. If they aren't going to permit the American Flag, they can turn me away at their door. See how throwing patrons out for having the flag suits their "dining experience".

Occupiers claim violence is the only way:

Pajamas media has captured a leader of the Occupiers on tape saying that violence was the only way to get their message out using the French revolution has his example of a just violence. Shed blood? Pajamas media. Hmm, that's not NBC, CBS or ABC. I wonder why the main stream media hasn't picked up on that? Imagine if the Tea Party groups had advocated violence. The Tea Party, mainly representing Republicans, would likely have been vilified. After all, look what they try to do to them now. But the Occupiers are mainly representing and have the backing of the Democrats and their party.

It's also confusing to me why the Occupiers would be doing their thing on Wall St. They are protesting Wall st. for taking bailouts. But who gave them the bailouts? Where did the stimulus come from for those bailouts? Who signed off on the bailouts? Oh, that would be Obama.

Tea Party members hold up signs from the revolution such as "don't tread on me" and hand made signs protesting the bailouts and out of control spending. They never threatened taking the country with violence. Yet the Occupiers are not going after Obama or the Democrats, and they are threatening violence and bloodshed against fellow Americans. Hmm, I may have to rethink my position on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano when she said we have domestic terrorists. I wonder if she knew they were in her party though?

Give em guns:

Apparently, an arm of the Justice Department has given weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico and those guns are being used against Americans. It's also coming out that Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general was aware of this.

What kind of an idiot gives guns to another country to be used against the citizens of this country? I guess we may have that answer. The Obama Administration.

This was all one days news. I can't wait to see tomorrows news!

You're welcome to comment.


Friday, October 7, 2011

Welcome to Government Health Care

I'm going to tell you a bit of a story. This may be boring, but it's true.

Without going into specifics as to why, I now have guardianship of my 14 year old nephew. He was and is on medicaid for his health care. Medicaid is the health care plan that is used by people that don't earn enough money to buy their own health insurance or are in a low income household where health insurance is not a benefit of a job that may be held by the parents.

Upon acquiring guardianship of my nephew, I wrote to my brother and asked him to drop the medicaid so that I could get coverage for him. When there is a medicaid program in place, insurance companies will not allow you to be insured through them.

Since my nephew (his name is Ryan) is a 14 year old boy, it can be expected that there will be a need for doctors at various times for various reasons, whether it be regular exams and checkups or sports physicals or injury. Ryan is no exception and has proven it. He's playing football. Not having heard from my brother regarding this health plan, I've been waiting and probably even anticipating that first problem. Well, that problem has arisen.

On Tuesday of this week, in gym class, Ryan jammed his finger on a football. He didn't do this on the football team but did it in gym class. So apparently, he's been an accident waiting to happen. He gym teacher taped his pinky to his ring finger. It swelled, and got worse over the next two days. Wednesday night, he complained that his entire arm hurt. I told him to take a couple of motrin and to keep his hand above his heart. So on Thursday, I decided he needed to see the doctor. Then the real fun began.

The first step is to call the doctor. Not knowing how the medicaid works since I've never dealt with it, I told the doctors office that I wanted to bring Ryan in, but wanted to know if they were able to take his medicaid for their payment, and if they could look him up to get the number for his plan. First they said that Ryan would be a new patient. He'd been to them for his sports physical, but apparently that didn't remove the "new patient" status from him. I'm not sure why that would matter anyway. Then they told me I'd have to call the Department of Human Services (DHS) to get his medicaid information. They then said that they would call me back and let me know if they can see him.

Naturally, I raised my eyebrows at this. Someone who depends on patients for a living is possibly not going to see a 14 year old kid that may have broken his finger and is in pain? Oh well, I had to call DHS so I'd wait for their call back. In the meantime, I called DHS.

Now it gets real fun....or aggravating. I called the State DHS. It rang about three times, then the phone disconnected. Ok, this happens sometimes, so I'll just try again. Same result.

So I looked up the county that Ryan used to live in to call their DHS. I got a voice mail. If you are calling for this...push one, if for that, push 2 and so on. I pushed the button. The same voice came on again, this time much more faded. I get a whole new set of options to choose from. Found my option, pushed the button, and that same voice, even more faded started giving me more options to choose from. I couldn't hear what the options were, so I pushed zero. The phone rang again. And again, and again. I hung up after about the tenth ring and started the process over again. Same results. Push the option choice, and get the fading voice with each new set of options.

In Michigan, they have a thing called Mi Child. A catchy little ditty for My Child. I went online and looked that up, and found the medicaid program with it. This was to apply for these programs. But there was a number with it. So I called and actually spoke to a live human being.

Let me pause here. This process of finding these different places and following the prompts has taken me about 50 minutes so far. But finally, I got someone that wasn't a computerized voice mail. I was told that I had to call the DHS in my county since Ryan was now living with me. She gave me the number and I thanked her and called my county DHS.

Called my county DHS and they told me I had to call the county DHS where Ryan was registered. They gave me a number. I called it. They told me I had to call the State DHS and gave me a number. I called it. They sent me back to Ryan's old county DHS (yes, I'd already been there a couple of times), and they gave me yet another number to call.

His old county DHS sent me back to the state DHS with yet another phone number. Again, I was pushed off. So I called my county DHS again and this time, I told the operator the process I had gone through. She put me through to the "screener". Voicemail. Called again and this time, told the operator (different operator) my story and she put me through to the "screener" again. This time, I got a live person. I told my story yet again.

She said she couldn't give me any information on Ryan's plan because I was not listed on there, that only his dad could get it. One thing with each person that I spoke to that I haven't mentioned is that my brother has not cancelled anything and has not returned my calls or letters. They all said that he's committing fraud by not cancelling it out and should be charged.

After hearing this several times and telling them that I'm not interested in prosecuting I finally said to this last person, 'if you want to prosecute him for fraud, have at it, but right now, I have a kid with a possible broken finger and I'm trying to get him to a doctor that seems to be balking at seeing the kid, and using the system in place to pay for the bill of taking care of this finger if anyone ever decides that a 14 year old is worthy enough to be seen'.

It's now 10:00 a.m. I've been making these calls since 8:30. 90 minutes of phone calls! I think I've been more than patient with all of these dolts. Then I said, "look, I'm only interested in getting his policy number. This kid is in some pain due to this finger injury. If you're going to give me the number, give it to me, otherwise I'll just write a check to the doctor and pay for it out of my own pocket!'  She gave me the number.

As if like clockwork, when I hung up the doctors office called. They said, "we may be able to see him at 3:15." I said, "May?" I said, "if you don't want to see him, I can take him to the witch doctor down the road. I'm going to pick him up from school and bring him in an hour. If that's not good for you, turn a 14 year old kid in pain, away." This is a town of maybe 1,000 people. Did they all get sick today?

We arrived at the doctors office. They don't have an x-ray machine in their clinic, but that's okay because they don't accept the plan Ryan is on anyway. So they sent us to another urgent care clinic.

We saw a doctor. They took his temperature, measured him, weighed him and the doctor looked at it and said "I don't know if it's broken. It may be. We don't have an X-ray machine so I'm going to send you to the hospital and they can X-ray it and to just take Motrin with food."  I've been doing that for two days already! I needed this hassle to be told to do what I've been doing??!!??

Off we went to the hospital. They, like the others, took all of the information on Ryan. Ryan is now in every system in the midwest. They took the X-rays and said that someone would call me later. No waiting to find out. No option if it's broken to have it splinted or a cast put on. Just pretty much a "see you later." So I asked the girl if it was broken. She said the radiologist would have to read it. I said, "you see these things every day and you've obviously worked at this for a few years, just tell me if you think it's broken." She said she couldn't do that, that she could lose her license. I promised not to tell. She wouldn't talk. Apparently, if Ryans finger is broken, it's a state secret.

It is now 9:25 a.m. on Friday. I have not heard anything yet about his finger.

So why this long drawn out recitation of the events of one 14 year old kid with an injured pinky? This is government health care! This is the inefficiency of doctors and doctors offices! This is what we can expect in three years whe government health care takes over.

I can't cancel Ryan's insurance through the government because I didn't sign him up. But it's my tax dollars paying for it. I can't get normal insurance on Ryan because the state medicaid program has him in their clutches.

What happens when you go to a business and you can't get the product you want due to inefficiency or just plain old poor service? You go to another company to do your business that's better, don't you? Well, I can't do that with health care because the government controls the process and the products and the procedures.

Don't we constantly hear from government officials and elected officials that we must do these things "for the children"?

Government does two things correctly. Only two. First, they operate the military, which is their primary job and they do it well. The other thing they do well? Well, it took me going through this process to figure out the other thing they do well. That is that they are the best at screwing up everything else they touch!

So what happens to Ryan's finger? If I don't get a response and results today by the time he gets home from school, I'm taking the tape off of his finger, grabbing a flat piece of wood and making a splint and taping that to his finger and leaving it until it starts feeling better and giving him motrin for the next couple of days and hope that it doesn't get worse. If it improves, I might start referring to myself as Dr. Brett.

You're welcome to comment.


Wednesday, September 28, 2011

You Are Being Tracked!

Not long ago, I was driving on I-96 in Lansing in the rain. Driving 70 mph, I came to an overpass heading uphill and then it would start downhill after crossing the overpass. As I reached the top of the overpass I saw what looked like a lounge chair sitting in the middle of my lane just past the peak of the overpass. I barely had time to figure out if I should go to right lane or to slide over the shoulder to get around it and of course there was someone right behind me. Luckily, I missed the chair as did the guy behind me. I then grabbed my cell phone and called 911 to let them know that this chair was sitting there and someone wasn't going to be so lucky.

When I called, they asked my name, where I was and where the chair is. I told them my name, but wasn't sure which mile I was on. They said not to worry about it that they had my location and name. They did this before I reached the next mile marker to get my bearings on where I was. At 70 mph, that only takes me a minute, at the most,  to figure out where I am.

Cell phone companies can track us. Our GPS systems in our cars know where we are. Who else has access to our GPS systems? When you pull up to a stop light, look at the light and around it. You'll likely see cameras. How many people have received tickets in the mail without having been stopped by a police officer?

Today, it's reported that Facebook can track us and have been tracking what you're looking at on the internet. Not just while you're on their site, but even after you leave it.

Two days ago, it was reported that the new health care law, Obamacare, will require doctors to forward your medical information to the government for them to track.

Now there are two more stories. One an op-ed written by Peter Orzag, the former budget director in the Obama administration saying that democracy should be suspended to allow policies to go through and to offset the gridlock in Washington.

Governor Perdue from North Carolina, a Democrat, says that she thinks that elections should be suspended for two years so that Congress can work on fixing the economy without having to decide between their re-election and what's good for the people they represent.

It's appearing more and more that we have a government run amok. Our Government has borrowed more than they take in for years. It's really blown up the past two years spending more in the past two years through the failed stimulus plans and gimmicks like cash for clunkers, and other things they've done, than all previous Presidents combined.

We've been inundated with sex scandals over the past 15 years in government as well as in the school systems where our children are attending. We've got federal, state, and local governments abusing the money that they do receive either spending money on things that aren't necessary or in voting themselves outrageous salaries and benefits. The Post Office is going broke and we'll likely see a massive reduction in services, which will only add to the mail not arriving in a timely fashion, at the right place if it even arrives at all.

When all of these things go wrong and create a bad economy or unseemly arguments and even threats between party members of the other party and even in the halls of Congress, the government comes to us and says it's the other guys fault and we must all share the sacrifice. In the meantime, these irresponsible people want to know our every movement and monitor our activities. I really expect that the next time the doctor tells me to turn my head and cough, some government official is going to be standing next to me saying "Please cover your mouth when you cough".

The ones that need the tracking are our government officials. Our elected representatives. From our local government all the way to Congress and the White House. Attach the GPS devices to their waistbands. Sign them on to Facebook so that we can see where they are going and what sites they are visiting while representing us. Give them cell phones so that when they go to the hooker everyone knows it from their wives to the voter.

Obama, and the Congress want to know our every movement and want to direct even how we think on different matters, but they can't stop illegal aliens from crossing our borders. They want to direct the size of the toilet in your home to save water, but they can't get the mail system to operate.

They claim that they must do this for our protection from the evil corporations, yet they bailed out and took over General Motors and Chrysler. They became the companies that they claim to hate. They think they know what's best for our health insurance but want to eliminate the experts, the insurance companies.

We are being watched with nearly everything we do. The good thing about them tracking us is that the government fails at nearly everything. If they were going to go to the trouble of tracking me that day on I-96, why did I have to call them? Why didn't they see with their various tracking devices that someone had lost a chair in the middle of the expressway? Why didn't they remove it before I even had to call them and make them aware of it? It makes me wonder if I could have sued them for their failure if I had hit that chair.

You're welcome to comment....but be aware that you're being watched.


Tuesday, September 20, 2011

This week, President Obama proposed raising taxes. So what's surprising about this? The only surprise is that he's waited so long to lay out a tax increase plan in any detail. Up to this point, we've just been inundated with "tax the rich" or "make the rich pay their fair share".

I did some checking. According the U.S. Census Bureau, we have 307,006,550 people in this country as of 2009. We have 236,000 that have earned income above $1 million per year. That is .0077% of the people in this country. Please note, that's less than 1% of the people in this country earn $1 Million or more per year.

It's tough reading numbers and correlating them. But let's give it a shot. According to the Internal Revenue Service, those earning over $1 million per year are paying over 20% of the taxes. Put these numbers together. Less than 1% of the people in this country are paying 20% of the taxes paid.

Here's another for you. People making over $1 million per year are paying 29.1% of their income towards taxes. While people making between $50,000 and $75,000 per year are paying just 15%. So again, let me simplify it for you. The "rich" are paying a 29.1% rate while the middle class is paying 15%. Do we really need to be told that 29.1% is a higher rate than 15%? Apparently so, because here's the quote from Obama. " It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million." So I can only ask, who is it that really doesn't get it? The American people or President Obama? The facts state that it's President Obama that doesn't understand simple math.

Obama has decided to call this the Buffett Rule. If I were Obama, I'd hestitate to use any word that that sounds like "buffet" meaming food. I'll explain that in a minute.
Warren Buffett is not being completely honest when he talks about his secretary paying more in income taxes than he pays. Technically, he's correct, so he's not a complete liar, but he does lead people to believe something that's not true. Warren Buffet pays 15% capital gains tax on his investments. He doesn't pay income tax for work. So he's comparing his secretaries income tax to his investment tax.

I said that I'd explain my little comment about the name of his plan. A report is out by the Department of Justice saying they paid $16.00 for donuts. $8.00 for a cup of coffee, at conferences. This reminds me of the $600 toilet seats from about 30 years ago.
Obama does seem to have a problem with naming his different little policy plans and even his campaign. There's the Buffett Rule a day before the DOJ talks about spending millions on appetizers at conferences and his slogan for re-election seems to be "Winning the Future". After the nearly 3 years we've gone through do you really think that a slogan with the initials "WTF" is something a normal man would use for his re-election campaign (Thank you for that information Bev)?

The good news in all of this is that the Buffett Rule will not come to pass (no pun intended). The Republicans in the House will not vote for raising taxes during a recession.

You're welcome to comment.


Friday, September 16, 2011

Humility and Honor vs Self Aggrandizement and Embarrassment

George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam Hussein
The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to
our men and women now serving in Iraq .
The operation was based on the superb work of
intelligence analysts who found the
dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by
brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many
dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in
their effort to bring hope and
freedom to the Iraqi people.
Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the
nation, I thank
the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'them.

And Now Let's hear from
  the Narcissist!

Barack Hussein Obama speech, Sunday, May 1, 2011:

And so shortly after taking office,
I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the
killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of my war against al Qaeda, even as
I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by
my intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread
to ground.
I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at
my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan .

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

The Only Thing Stopping it is Politics

President Barack Obama gave his speech to the Joint Session of Congress last week. It was nothing more than a campaign stop at taxpayers expense. During his speech he told Congress not to play politics but to pass the bill immediately.

Yesterday, the plan was unveiled. The jobs bill will cost $447 Billion. It will be paid for by tax increases and closing tax loopholes (just another way of saying tax increase).

Obama is correct. The only thing stopping this bill from ever getting off the ground it politics. His political games. Not Congress. Oh, don't misunderstand, Congress will join in with the game and Obama will claim politics is stopping it. His lead spokesperson in this is likely to be Representative Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.

The proposal is to close loopholes in the tax code for Oil Companies. If this was to happen, who would pay? According to Obama, Oil Companies. But what he doesn't seem to get,,,,ever,,,,, is that companies, including oil companies, don't pay taxes. They pass the expense of the taxes on to you and I. So he can claim it's a tax or a closing of loopholes for oil companies, but that's just political speak. The fact is that it will be a tax increase on you and I.

The proposal calls for a tax increase on private jets. This happened once before, but not with jets. It happened with Yachts. That luxury tax nearly wiped out that business. It certainly set it back for years. An interesting little side note is that John Kerry bought a boat, and stored it in another state because they didn't have the tax that Massachussets had. Kerry will vote for a tax increase, but he won't pay it, and he's one that can afford that increase. Once again, it's politics that Obama is playing by going after those that can afford a private jet. The result will be a business that starts going under, and jobs lost.

The proposal calls for a tax increase on those earning $200,000 per year. Obama has been whining about this since he began running for President in 2007. He's now inserting it into his "jobs bill". Do you really think he's not playing politics? If he really wants to avoid politics, he could talk about the 47% that don't pay taxes but rather get a refund from those that do pay taxes. But now, I'm being political.

Obama stands up and says don't play politics just pass this bill. In doing so, he's playing the politics by making the first accusation while he's the first in line to play politics.

This jobs bill never had a chance to pass. Obama knew this before even arranging for the campaign speech before a Joint Session of Congress. The entire charade that the President is putting is pure politics. Those serious about a jobs bill ought to be asking instead, why is Obama playing politics when we really need a jobs bill?

You're welcome to comment.


Monday, September 12, 2011

Tax Hikes, Ponzi Schemes and Cowards

Tax and Spend
Following President Obama's campaign speech last week to a Joint Session of Congress, thinly veiled as an important speech on jobs, the plan is now coming out. It's a typical Democrat plan. Tax and spend. He wants to raise taxes on those earning $200,000 per year as well as oil companies and Airlines to pay for his $447 Billion jobs bill that he's sending to Congress.

If you don't pay attention to politics and what's happening in Washington, I would think that you'd be confused by this.

According to the President, he agrees that we shouldn't raise taxes during a recession. But he's proposing a tax hike.

According to the President, the bill will be fully paid for. However, the taxes are geared to pay back this money for this new stimulus (or jobs bill, if you prefer) over a ten year period. But I didn't hear him say the spending would take place over a ten year period.

According to the President, Congress should extend the payroll tax cut, otherwise Republicans will be responsible for raising taxes on the people. But he's proposing a tax increase in his new jobs bill.

Is it any wonder he's failing at running this country? He says not to raise taxes while he proposes raising taxes. His previous stimulus schemes ended up costing the country more and now he's wanting to add class warfare to his list of failures.

Ponzi Scheme

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulant operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.

The above describes social security. Ponzie scheme is how Governor Rick Perry of Texas describes social security. It's now being reported that at the Republican Debate tonight in Tampa, Florida, that Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney are planning to attack Perry for calling it a ponzi scheme. Do they really believe that social security is not a ponzi scheme? Or is this them coddling to the media because the media has been talking about Perry calling it a ponzie scheme?

If Romney and/or Bachmann or any of the other candidates go after Perry regarding this, they will have lost a lot of ground in my opinon. I am not advocating for Perry. Maybe on this issue, but I'm not sure that Perry is the right guy for the job. I like him, but I'm not convinced. So my thoughts above are about the issue, not the candidate.

Social Security takes from the workers of today and gives it to the retirees who were the workers of yesterday. The largest group is now retiring. When the last of the baby boomers are retired and drawing social security, there will be alot less workers to pay for the retirees benefits from social security. This is why social security is acutarially assessed as being broke by 2039.

If Bachmann or Romney or any of the others go after Perry for calling social security what it is, they will only hurt themselves. I just hope that Perry doesn't back down and sticks to his guns.

September 11, Rememberance

The anniversary of September 11, 2001 where we were attacked by fanatics is really spoiled. I watched some of it on Sunday morning and saw politics. Leading up to it, I saw politics.

Need an example? In New York, the Mayor, Michael Bloomberg said that first responders will not be invited to the ceremonies. He also said that there would be no religious leaders speaking. One man, supposedly a leader, determining how and who may honor the nearly 3,000 people murdered that day by an enemy that does not wear a uniform.

It reminded me of the news organizations following that fateful day. They decided that it would not be good for the American people to see those attacks so they quit running the visuals of the attacks, "for the good of the people". I believe that we should always see it as long as this war continues. Let the American people worry about their own mental health. With most of the press being halfway crazy, I'm not sure they are the proper ones to decide what is good for others physche.

Paul Krugman even giving a hint at the suggestion that we are in the wrong in any way, shape or form, for what happened on September 11, 2001 only proves that some of the press doesn't have an elevator reaching the top floor.

We were attacked by al queda. We didn't provoke them. We didn't invite them. They attacked us. They chose to take flying lessons and skip the classes on landing them. They chose to board the planes carrying box cutters as weapons. They chose to fly the planes into four buildings and only American heroes prevented them from achieving their entire goal.

Am I worried about collateral damage in Afghanistan, Iraq or even Iran? Not in the least. It's the enemy that is hiding behind the skirts of their women, or behind the toys of their children AFTER they attacked our women and children and other non military personnel, I'm not the least bit worried about blowing up a mosque if that's where the terrorists are hiding. Those that murdered our citizens are cowards and were cowards. They prove it by hiding behind their women and children and sending those same women and children off to the store with bombs strapped around their waists.

Paul Krugman has the problem. Not America.

You're welcome to comment.


Friday, September 9, 2011

Obama Proves He Can Save Money

President Obama proved on Thursday night that he does know how to get things done without spending least his own money, for his own benefit. Before a joint session of Congress, Obama gave a campaign speech. It cost his campaign nothing. He had a captive audience in both Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate. He also had a national television audience free of charge to his campaign.

We know that it's campaign season because Obama, a very Liberal Democrat, has proposed tax cuts and even dared to call the end of the payroll tax from a year ago, a tax increase if it's not extended and claimed that the Republicans would be responsible if the payroll tax cut was not extended.

He claimed that his bill that he's going to forward to Congress in a few days, would be deficit neutral and not increase the debt. The estimated cost is $447 Billion. He didn't say how he'd pay for it, but claims it won't add to the debt nor the deficit. Didn't he also make that claim about his stimulus package in 2009? Following that debacle, the deficit quadrupled and the debt increased three fold.

He is true to his Liberal roots in that he thinks the only solution to the economic problems in this country comes from Government. The only thing he's proven with all of his schemes is that the answers the government has are the wrong answers. His plan has not worked!. In fact, all of his little schemes have failed.

The claim by Obama, and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schults (D) Florida is that his plans saved the country from falling into another Depression. How does one prove this? There is no way to prove this, nor disprove it. We do know that the only thing that has been successful in turning an economy around is to lower taxes. Reagan did it in the 80's to much success. Bush the younger did it in 2001 and 2003. Each of those tax cuts increased revenue to the federal government because people were making more money following the tax cuts. That added income meant they paid more in dollars in taxes, even though they paid a lower tax rate. That added income meant more spending by citizens which caused the economy to move forward in great numbers. It created jobs, which of course, lowered the unemployment rate, eventually down to a rate of 4%.

Obama also slid back to his Liberal Democrat roots by calling for those that have been "fortunate" (as though all of those that are rich didn't work for it and earn it) to pay their "fair share".

This is just another stimulus package. His stimulus packages have never worked. Remember Cash for Clunkers? Failed. Remember the $800 billion stimulus? Money that went to unions, and cronies and of course to African men, in Africa, to teach them how to wash after sex to avoid STD's.

Remember that his stimulus package would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%? Unemployment shot up to 10.2% and has settled in at 9.1%. The 8% unemployment rate was packaged as a nightmare before the stimulus, now it seems like a dream to get that low.

His speech was a constant cadence of "you should pass this bill immediately". He ended each paragraph with it when running through what he wanted. 'The bill will put more first responders in jobs, you should pass this bill immediately.'  'My bill will put more teachers in the classrooms and help our students and strengthen our schools, you should pass this bill immediately'. 'This bill will help restore our infrastructure including a run down bridge between Ohio and Kentucky, you should pass this bill immediately.'

That last line was a good example of this being a campaign speech because he's been losing so much support in Ohio, that they are almost to the point of dropping the O's in Ohio because of the "O" in Obama.

Obama had a national audience, in a prestigious setting, where the utmost respect is shown for the office of President. Congress stands up and applauds the President. Not the man, but the office. Many in this country don't understand that. They see a standing ovation for the President in Congress and they consider it for the man, not the office.

It's slick advertising at no financial cost to the President. He was able to make a speech, in a forced friendly group at no expense to his campaign but rather paid for by the taxpayer and the media. There could be a cost in ethics if the American people that don't follow politics ever catch on to his schemes.

You're welcome to comment.


Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Let The Silly Season Begin

With two weeks until fall begins, in a year prior to an election, the silly season has already begun. Obama is in full campaign mode, although it can be said he never left campaign mode since the last election in 2008. On the other side, the Republicans are lining up almost as long as the unemployment lines to take that job away from Obama. The press is already inserting themselves into the election, which is to be expected.

Let's start with the Republicans. This should have been an easy year for any candidate to run against Obama. In Mitt Romney's case, he's made it look easy until recently. He gives a speech once in awhile, but the rest of the time he seemed content to assume the front runner status and not say much.

Newt Gingrich shot himself in the foot within hours of announcing his candidacy. Herman Cain has stayed on message, but he's seen as on the fringe. Ron Paul is in again with the only difference being that he's not going to run for his Congressional seat at the same time. That has more to do with his age rather than confidence in his Presidential bid. Tim Pawlenty never got off the ground and dropped out after the Iowa straw poll. We've been told that John Huntzman will be a formidable candidate, but other than that, I've heard nothing about or from him. Former Senator Rick Santorum is also running,  but he seems forgotten until he appears on the dais at the debates.

Representative Michelle Bachmann is a tea party favorite and has been at or near the lead and withstands the attacks on her in the press by the press as well as by those that consider her a Right Wing Extremist. Now, Governor Rick Perry of Texas has entered the race and taken a good sized lead. This has brought Romney out in public again. Finally, there is Sarah Palin out there running around the country, who hasn't announced yet, but may...or may not.

Thus far, the most blatant stunt by the press has been against a man not running. Former Vice President Dick Cheney was promoting his book and last week appeared on the Today Show on NBC. Following the interview, as they went to commericial, they didn't just cut out as they normally do but rather slowly backed out with the camera shot to include a woman standing outside the window who held up a sign, blocking the window showing Cheney as the camera panned back, pushing for the arrest of Cheney for war crimes.

As for President Obama, he has never stopped campaigning or whining about former President Bush. We are seeing the same thing in Obama as we in Michigan did with former Governor Jennifer Granholm. Within months of Granholm taking office, the economy in Michigan began falling like a rock. Her favorite line was "I inherited this from John Engler.." the former three term Governor who was term limited out after 2002. Her re-election bid in 2006 was all about how Engler had destroyed Michigan. Engler had a 3% unemployment rate, while Granholm's soared to over 15% unemployment and still she was re-elected. Now we're seeing the same thing in Obama.

We've been hearing "it's Bush's fault" from day one with the Obama administration. Bush had an unemployment rate that reached as low as 4% and hovered at 5% for most of his 8 years following his tax cuts. 5% is consider full employment. In his last year, it moved up to 7%. Obama promised that unemployment would not reach 8% if his stimulus was passed. It passed and unemployment grew to 10.1% and is now stuck at 9.1%.

Obama spent the first two years with no meetings with Republicans. On the other hand, his party held a filibuster proof Senate and a wide margin lead in the House. He didn't need Republicans to get his agenda passed. Yet it still took over a year to get his health care plan passed. Now he spends his time giving waivers to his followers (who wanted health care passed but don't want to be part of it). Over 1,700 waivers so far.

His incompetence  was on full display with his lack of ability to get anything done when he had both Houses of Congress on his side. He has not had the people on his side. In the last election the Tea Party was created and became part of the Republican party. They are Conservatives standing up. This  caused the largest turn around in an election in over 70 years. So Obama now rules with executive order, implementing more than 600 regulations on businesses during July.

The silly season used to refer to the lead up to Christmas when people would rush around in preparation for the holiday and do some crazy things. Now we include politics. Christmas' silly season is about four weeks long. Politics will last about 14 months. Yesterday, James Hoffa warmed up a union crowd in Detroit for President Obama and declared war on Republicans. An odd thing for them to do since these are the same people that claim we've gone into two wars on a credit card. Now they want to declare war on Republicans allowing Obama to continue to put everything else on a credit card.

Let the silly season begin? We can't stop it from beginning.

You're welcome to comment.


Thursday, July 14, 2011

Debt, Debt, and More Debt

As we approach the August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling, the news is full of predictions of the credit rating for the country going into a slide and downgraded. They are predicting doom and gloom. I almost expect locusts next.

How did we get here? Are the Democrats to blame? Are the Republicans to blame? The answer is an emphatic yes! They are both responsible. The Democrats want to raise taxes. This never works. The Republicans want to cut spending. This is never followed through on.

There is an old saying in business. "Spend money to make money." It's true to a point. If you want your business to grow, you have to put in some funds to help it grow. But, if you're looking to increase sales, you don't buy new shoes. If you're looking to increase the quality of a hammer, you don't buy balsa wood to make it sturdy.

Politicians have been charged with being good stewards of the money they receive because they receive that money from the taxpayer. They are taking our money to keep this country alive so that we can continue to enjoy the freedoms we've earned throughout our history.

What they have done is wasted our money for decades. These past two years under Obama they've spent more than all previous presidents combined. But we can't just blame Obama. He's only the latest and biggest spender we've had. We can blame George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and we can blame each Congress we've had.

They've borrowed money from social security. Social Security was already a system doomed to failure. They sped the failure up with their borrowing of that money. The war on poverty was only supposed to cost us $9 million dollars. As little as ten years ago, we were spending $650 Billion dollars on over 80 welfare programs. So here we are 40 years after the start of the war on poverty and poverty is worse.

Whenever we get into a recession, where is the first place that the big spenders look to get money to save the government from their overspending? Notice I said "THEIR" overspending. They come to the people. In the early 90's we had a recession. Remember Bush the Elders "no new taxes" pledge? It started the recession. Then we had Bill Clinton getting on TV one month after being elected and saying he tried as hard as he could and he just can't justify giving the middle class a tax break as he'd promised. Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate and we had more new taxes. The economy flattened out again. The growth dropped from 4.1% in the final quarter of 1992 and languished at 2.6% growth for the next two years.

We never see them cutting their pay or even freezing their pay. It's a small thing because if they cut their pay, or even didn't take pay for a year, it's not even a drop in the bucket. But to increase their pay as they have over the years along with the gold plated benefits they get, is just completely wrong however you look at it.

How many times have we heard of the waste, fraud and abuse of the welfare system and they tell us they just "can't" prevent all of it. So they admit that their war on poverty won't work but they continue to throw billions of dollars down the drain each year.

President Kennedy knew what worked and President Reagan proved Kennedy right. Lower taxes create more revenue to the government. People work harder to earn more if they don't have to pay higher tax rates. They get to keep more of their money. However, they are still paying more even though the rates have come down. Because they are earning more!

Reagan lowered the tax rates, dropping the highest rate down from 70% to 28% and the country flourished! Unfortunately, the politicians saw this money pouring into the coffers from this added economic activity and instead of being wise, they created more programs to spend money on that has been nothing more than added waste.

Bush lowered tax rates twice. In 2001 and 2003. Revenue to the federal government set new records. They were getting more and more money in via taxes, and the country again flourished. The unemployment rate was at or below 5% for the first seven years of Bush's Presidency. But the politicians spent it. Oh yeah, they paid down the debt a couple of times. But only small amounts and not consistently. Instead they created more programs to spend money that don't give a return for the buck.

Now we have Obama. He's spent money hand over fist and finally after two years admitted that shovel ready didn't really mean shovel ready. Now he wants to come to the American people and tell them to pay more to the government to pay for the governments wasted expenditures. But it's the people that are suffering, not the government. The government screws up the economy and the people are the ones suffering. And he wants the people to pay more to get the economy moving, which has FAIILED EACH TIME IT'S BEEN TRIED.

His latest threat is that if he and Congress don't get a deal so that they can raise the debt ceiling, he may not be able to pay seniors their due. It's an empty threat. If he follows through on it and does withhold checks to seniors, what will happen? He'll lose votes. One thing a politician doesn't want to lose is votes.

Congress is no better. The Republicans are saying cut spending and no increase in taxes. That's all well and good and that's what I hope happens. But, it's not binding beyond a year. They are all talking about ten year plans. They have no control over nine of those years. They can pass legislation to cut spending for the next ten years, but the next Congress can come in and change all of that.

Let's assume for a moment that they come to a deal and they do agree to cut spending for the next ten years. That cannot be the end of it. Revenue to the government if falling. They need to increase the revenue. But not with more taxes! They need to revamp the tax code. They need to lower taxes! If they were smart, they'd go to a flat tax or fair tax. Everyone pays the same rate. If you make $1 million dollars per year, you pay 10% in taxes. If you make $10,000 per year, you pay 10% in taxes. Everyone keeps 90% of their pay. With that 90%, they will go and start businesses and hire people. They will spend their money to get the goods and services that they need and even things they don't need but want. They will invest. This will generate more income for those they buy from and because there are more businesses and more people working and more money in the economy, the tax revenues will go up for the government. This HAS WORKED EACH TIME IT'S BEEN TRIED!

As people see more opportunity, less will be living on welfare because they can have more by working. Charitable giving will increase, as it has each time more money is left in the people's hands because the American people are a generous people for those less fortunate. But when they give willingly, they give more. When it's confiscated and redistributed, they find ways to avoid paying added amounts.

If they can't reach a deal, so be it. We'll see where Obama decides to cut back. Maybe his buddies at GE will not get a zero tax burden after a $5 Billion profitable year.

I have said that the fault of this lies with both Republican and Democrat. It is Congress and the Presidents that have failed. I realize that there are more than 80 new Congressmen that weren't in office 40 years ago. But they hold the title of their predecessors and are responsible today for solving the problem and they each get the blame for those that held their seats in the past. They have the opportunity to solve the problem or they can continue the problem or they can make it worse. THIS becomes the responsibility of the American people. Not paying more taxes to pay for Presidents and Congresses that have been incompetent. Our responsibility lies with making sure that we put people in Congress and the White House that will be good stewards of the people's money and if we put a bad one in, it's our responsibility to get him/her out of office quickly and put someone in that will be good stewards of the financial well being of this country.

You're welcome to comment.


Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Is Casey Anthony Innocent?

In the past week, I've heard, as we all have, the stories about Casey Anthony's acquittal. She was found Not Guilty by a jury for the death of her daughter, Caylee Anthony.

I know virtually nothing about this case. I hate hearing about children hurt, let alone murdered. So when this story came out originally, the only thing that I knew was that a girl was missing and her mother seemed to be inconsistent in things she said to police. Beyond that, anytime it was mentioned, I changed the channel. For awhile there, I was changing the channel alot.

Right from the start, this seemed to be turning into another OJ Simpson farce with Geraldo Rivera doing nightly programs analyzing every piece of data that leaked out and every possible thought that Simpson may have had whether he had them or not.

The only thing that I'd really heard since the original story about the girl missing was quick blurbs on the news all with the idea that Casey Anthony was guilty of killing her daughter and waiting for the trial was the only thing from getting the guilty verdict, and of course programs like Nancy Grace who advertised what they were going to discuss and it was about Anthony and the latest. Almost as though it was a regular television series.

Now the verdict is in and she's found not guilty. Did she kill the little girl? I don't know. Maybe. But the public is sure up in arms about it. New laws are now being proposed about it being illegal to not report a child missing within a certain time frame. Apparently, because Anthony didn't report her child missing for 31 days.

These trials should be tried in court. It would be good if the prosecution would just present their facts at trial rather than on the television programs. It is as though they want the public to force the jury to come in with a certain verdict or else by their early commenting on television before the trial is even started. The Defense as well.

Now, one of the jurors has quit her job because she's been threatened for coming in with the "wrong" verdict. In addition, she's apparently left and gone into hiding. She fears for her life.

How can someone so upset about a child murdered and the supposed perpetrator being found not guilty, then turn around and threaten murder on another? If they are so upset about a murder, how can they then threaten murder?

We have laws and a justice system in this country. It's not perfect, but that lack of perfection protects many that are not guilty from being found guilty for something that they didn't do. Unfortunately, it also is flawed the other way and some innocent people are found guilty that really weren't. It's not justice if it only works the way one person or even one group of people want it to work, it will be even more flawed.

Did the prosecution do a poor job? Maybe or maybe even probably. Did the defense do a good job? Again, maybe. Suppose for a minute that Casey Anthony is really innocent. What's her life going to be like now? Most think she's guilty and won't want anything to do with her. Jobs will be hard to come by. A real life will be hard to come by. In addition, she has to live the rest of her life with the fact that her daughter is dead, in addition to the majority of the country thinking she's guilty.

There has to be some doubt about who killed little Caylee because 12 people, sitting in the same place day after day, listening to all that went on in the trial, all came up with the same conclusion. Not guilty. Is the jury correct or is the lynch mob that has formed correct?

In our system, OJ Simpson is not guilty of killing his wife. Casey Anthony is not guilty of killing her daughter. If either or both verdicts were wrong and both of them really did commit the murders they were charged and acquitted of, they still have one final judgement that they must face. No legal wrangling when that time comes.

I have people that are important to me that have things to deal with that I'd much rather spend my time listening to, consoling and helping if I'm able. I don't need nor want the judgements of talk show hosts guiding my thoughts and actions.

So is Casey Anthony guilty of her crime? No. Not in the eyes of the justice system that we live under.

You're welcome to comment.


Friday, June 17, 2011

Constitutional Amendments

During the past two weeks, I've received E-mails from people advocating changes to the Constitution. Particularly regarding a balanced budget, term limits and making Congress follow the laws that they pass for the rest of us.

Do we really need Constitutional amendments to do these things? If there are no honest, moral and ethical people left in this country, then I guess the answer would have to be yes. But I refuse to believe that everyone in this country is dishonest, immoral and unethical. There may not be many or any that are willing to run for office, but they are out there.

I'll start with Congress following laws that they pass for the country. Our Representatives and Senators are supposed to be....well, for lack of a better description, US. They are our neighbors and friends that we elect to office. This is usually true when they are first elected. Unfortunately, once they are elected, they are now part of the "elite". They set themselves up as being better than those that actually for them.

There is no better or more timely example of of this than Representative Anthony Weiner. He is still Representative Weiner as he hasn't yet resigned, although he did announce yesterday that he is resigning. Weiner had been in office for seven years. During that time he's taken part in a 401k offered to him as well as being eligible for a pension. The 401k, according to reports will get him $32,000 per year. He'll not be eligible, apparently, for another ten years. At age 62, he'll also be eligible for the pension which will get him another $46,000 per year income. After 7 years on the job, he qualifies for the pension, he only has to wait until he hits age 62. I wonder how many Americans are eligible for a pension after 7 years on the job, let alone eligible for $46,000 per year.

Term limits is something that is always put out there. People seem to forget that we already have term limits. It's called the ballot box. In Michigan, we actually have term limits in addition to the ballot box. People were clamoring for it for years and it was finally passed about ten years ago. Now, people are aleady calling for an end to term limits within the state. Term limits is nothing more than forcing people out that the voters don't have the time, energy or intestinal fortitude to vote out of office.

Yes, term limits would remove entrenched people like Nancy Pelosi, John Dingell and a host of others. But, if the people exercised their term limits ability by paying attention to what elected officials do, and the results their actions produce, and then voting them, there would be no need for the Constitution to do for them what they can't seem to take the time or effort to do for themselves.

Term limits would remove the bad officials, but it would also remove the good ones that are worth keeping in office for long periods of time.

The balanced budget is only admitting that our elected officials cannot control their urges to spend money. Not just the money we have, but money we don't have. There are times when it makes sense to run deficits. Times of war is one that stands out. Suppose we have a budget and we cannot spend more than what's budgeted. Do we then tell terrorists after a 9/11 event that they got away with it only because we can't afford to come after them?

Or we're already in a war, or two, or three, or four, and the money runs out. Do we now stop even though the objective hasn't been reached? Suppose we'd run out of money one day before Hussein or bin Laden. Do we then miss out on getting them because we just don't have the money to open the lid to the spider hole Hussein was hiding in? Or to go after bin Laden's compound?

We need politicians that will stand up during peacetime and say, "we're not going to spend this money because we may need it in the future for our soldiers." We need politicians that can control themselves to live within a balanced budget during peacetime so that if we have to go into deficit spending during a time of war, the numbers don't skyrocket so high that we can't dig our way out. That would be a responsible government.

What we currently have and have had for many years is a government full of spenders. They are like kids in a candy store. They have the ability to spend money we don't have and they do spend it. They are irresponsible. Do we really think that there are no responsible people left in this country that can control themselves when it comes to spending money we don't have?

The past two years, we've seen this irresponsibility at its' worst. The Democrat Congress didn't even try to pass a budget. The new Congress, which is split between both parties, can't even agree on a budget this year. The last Congress and the current President have spent more money than all of the previous Presidents combined!

Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget and limit terms and to follow the laws that they write for the rest of us. Maybe we don't have anyone with self control in government any longer. But if we do get a Constitutional amendment, spending won't be cut. Taxes will be raised. The spending problem will become more immediate and the first answer by politicians will be to raise money. Congress does not hold bake sales or raffles. Their first inclination is to raise taxes. Given the requirement of a Constitutional amendment, they will then be under the gun to get a solution by October 1 each year. This will make taxes the only real option which will then cause us to have a poor economy continuously.

Find the honest people, the ethical people and put them in office. One added little benefit of having honest, ethical and moral people in government is we might actually get elected officials that can keep their pants up and their skirts down.

You're welcome to comment.


Sunday, June 12, 2011

The Public (Lack of) Trust

On Monday, June 6, I had to go and take an exam. It is something to further my career that was required by the State. I arrived and they took me right in. They asked for a picture ID. They then took my picture. I then had to sign in with date, time and signature. I was permitted to go into the testing area where the computers are with a calculator that they provided, two magic markers and two plastic sheets to do my calculations on.

Then it got strange. I was then told to take everything out of my pockets and put it a locker and handed a key. I took my money out and put it in. Then my wallet, car keys and cell phone. As I was about to close the locker up, she then told me that I had to leave my watch in there as well. I raised my eyebrows, I guess because she smiled and said people have watches now that have all sorts of programs on it that could be used to cheat. Then, after all of my pockets were emptied, phone and watch locked up, I started to grab the calculator, pens and "paper" to go in when she said she needed me to turn my pockets inside out. I did so. She then told me to turn around and she had to make sure my back pockets were empty. At that point, I couldn't resist any longer and said "I know this is Lansing, but I'm not a politician". She told me that within a month or so, they were adding another measure of security by getting metal detecting wands that they'd have to start using. I sat down in front of the computer to take my exam and staring me in the face is a camera watching me take the exam.

There was another event that happened that day. Something more significant than my taking some exam that goes on every day across the country. Congressman Anthony Weiner (D) from New York was holding a press conference. A week earlier he had been accused of having contact with various women across the country that turned out to be of a sexual nature through his twitter and facebook accounts. He had been denying it for a week, then during that week claimed that someone had hacked into his accounts and done this activity.

During his press conference on June 6, he broke into tears and admitted that it was indeed him that had been in touch with various women across the country and it was him that sent out explict photo's of himself to these women. Despite many calls for his resignation, he said he would not resign and to this point, it's about the only thing he's told the truth about. He has not resigned yet.

There are so many things that could be said about this. Not long ago, Speaker John Boehner was berated in the press about his crying, but nothing was said about Weiners crying other than that he was in tears. There's the natural comparison between Weiner and other past and present Representatives, such as Mark Foley, who was accused of sexual activity using their status as a Congressman. Just a week earlier a special election was held because Chris Lee (R) also of New York had resigned after it was revealed he'd sent pictures of his bare chest out via these social network sites. Charlie Rangel (D) also of New York justified Weiners actions by saying that "at least he wasn't going after young boys" (Barney Frank comes to mind). But then, Charlie Rangel recently lost his chairmanship and was censured for not paying taxes.

On June 10, it came out that the police in Delaware were interviewing a 17 year old girl who they said was having "conversations" with Weiner as well through the internet. Weiner's office again went into denial saying that he didn't know she was 17 years old. My first thought was, 'why should we believe him", after all, he'd lied for a week saying someone hacked into his accounts and planted the contacts.' On June 11, it was announced that Weiner was checking himself into rehab and that he did indeed know that she was 17, but there was nothing inappropriate in his contact with her.

While these stories were unfolding, the talk shows all had people on to talk about the situation with Representative Weiner. Democrats, who called for resignations from Mark Foley (who resigned quickly), from Chris Lee (who resigned quickly), Senator Jon Ensign (who is still on the job but not seeking re-election, Senator David Vitter (who is still on the job), claimed that Weiners "relationships" online were of a personal nature and a personal failing and did not need to resign. This seemed the old fall back from the Clinton era when they were saying his activities with Monica Lewinsky were a personal relationship and nobody's business. They also claimed that this was on Weiners personal time and not during his working time as Representative and not using government property for this contact. We now know that's not true as well. They also claimed that this is done by many more people in Congress, but they don't name names, and offer no proof. Just state that he's not the only one. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But he was caught! The others, if there are others, haven't been caught...yet.

Apparently, the "public trust" is not a standard any longer. We elect these people to represent us in public office. To work for us. They are afforded some manner of prestige for holding the offices they hold. They are not elected to further their own careers outside of government, and they are not elected to use their positions to chase women, girls, or even boys and men for their own personal self gratification. They are there to further the agenda of the people that they represent in their own districts.

They should be held to a higher standard because they are sent to Washington to represent us. How does a Congressman further his constituents agenda chasing women from all over the country? Using a computer from his office to check his twitter account for messages from women is not representing his district. Checking private messages on his facebook account for pictures of women or to send naked pictures of himself to women, representing his district?

Imagine if you were using your computer at work for this activity. Wouldn't your boss fire you? You know the answer is yes, because there has been discussions in recent years about employers checking E-mail sent from computers at work. So why the different standard for a Congressman?

Weiner is now claiming to be a victim. He's checked himself into rehab for his "lllness" that he needs to get resolved which can only be done through professional help. He's requested a leave of absence from his job while he gets his problem "fixed". So now his actions have cost his constituents representation in Washington.

Trust in everyday life is important. The public trust however, should have, at the very least, the importance of the trust one person has for another, and I believe a higher standard because it affects the people that lent them the power of their voice in our form of government. 

They pass laws for someone like me that takes an exam and do everything they can to be sure that I'm honest in taking an exam for my own career, but they don't hold themselves to any standards when they are there to represent us.

Honesty and trust are very important. Congressman Weiner has abused that trust. He abused his office with what he did. He's apparently lied to his wife and that is personal for him and her to deal with, but he lied to his constituents, and that is not his personal life.

Like Chris Lee, Mark Foley, and many others Anthony Weiner should resign. To remove him from office would take a recall campaign by his district. By the time they gathered the necessary signatures, and scheduled the election it would be spring. There were be another election on that seat the following November, about 8 months later.

The only other way is redistricting. His district could be and likely will be eliminated by the next election due to redistricting. So even the people couldn't elect him back into that office.

Honesty and trust seem to be something we don't demand any longer and that doesn't bode well for getting quality officials in elected office. When the honesty and trust are gone, the respect is no longer there. That probably explains the lack of respect shown for our government and those we put into it better than anything.

You're welcome to comment.


Sunday, May 29, 2011

Memorial Day

On Monday we honor those that have fallen in their quest and success at securing freedom for the American people. Those that paid the ultimate price. From the Revolutionary War right up through today.
Throughout this country's history, each war the enemy was easily recognizable. During the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, the enemy wore red coats. The civil war was between Blue and Gray.
During the past ten years we've been involved in a different war. The war on terror. The terrorists don't have a uniform. They also don't limit their attacks to military personnel. On September 11, 2011, a new sort of war was started. Instead of attacking the military, the terrorists attacked citizens.
The draft ended in the 70's, but the terrorists reinstituted the draft on September 11, 2011. They didn't have a lottery. The draftees weren't warned in advance that they could be drafted. Christine Lee Hanson was two years old and on her way to Disney World with her parents. She was drafted into this war.
Beth Ann Quigly, a trader at the World Trade Center. She was 25 years old. She was drafted into this war.
There were 2,966 deaths from the attack on September 11. Women, children, elderly. Of the 2,966, only 55 had any affiliation with the military. Those 55 were at the Pentagon.
Of those killed on that day, only those on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania chose to join in the fight against terrorism. But they chose it out of necessity because they were forced into the choice. They had heard about the other hijackings and decided to fight to take the plane back. They failed in bringing the plane to safety, but they succeeded in saving other lives by stopping the plane from reaching its' destination of either the White House or the Capitol.
Our fallen soldiers from wars in our lifetimes and wars previous to our lives will be honored on Monday. Even if it's just a cookout in the backyard or a day off work or school. Those that died at the beginning of this war, that didn't know they were about to sacrifice their lives and those that knew they were about to sacrifice their lives on the Pennsylvania flight are also warriors in this nations history.
You're welcome to comment.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

NY 26: A Referendum? Tea Party Needs to Step Up

A special election was held in New York's 26th district on Tuesday. This seat was held by Congressman Chris Lee, who resigned following the discovery of pictures of him shirtless on Craigs List, apparently seeking out women.
Lee won his election with 68% of the vote in 2010 and the seat has been held by Republicans for fifty years. Obviously a Conservative district. But, as so often happens when a politician gets caught with his pants down, or in this case, his shirt off phishing for women, the party pays a price with an exodus of voters that just can't bring themselves to vote for anyone from that party based on one persons indiscretions.
This district was expected to be fairly close but still a victory for the Republican, Jane Corwin. The Democrat, Kathy Hochul was expected lose, and a Democrat who had run for the seat in the past, Jack Davis, ran as a Tea Party Candidate.
The results? Hochul won with 48% to Corwin's 42% with Davis getting 9% of the vote. The media and the Democrats are claiming it's a referendum on the Ryan budget which they say is going to destroy medicare. The Republicans are claiming that Davis took away votes from Corwin costing her the election.
First, Ryan's budget does not decimate Medicare. Even if it did, it would be a choic between ending it sometime in the next two years or waiting an additional six years and having it die on the vine. Medicare is already operating in the red, meaning it's spending more than it's taking in. It is projected to be completely out of money in 8 years. What have the Democrats proposed? Nothing. Even Obamacare has removed a substantial portion from Medicare and Hochul campaigned claiming that Obamacare was wrong to remove that money.
So if this was a referendum on Ryan's budget, then the people were misled in the campaign. Imagine that. Politicians lying to voters to get elected. I'm shocked!
Second, Jane Corwin, the Republican did not run hard. After all, it's a Republican district. She apparently thought it was going to be a fairly easy victory. So why get into the details of what she's going to do? Well, now she should know. Conservative viewpoints don't lose elections. Failing to express those conservative viewpoints will lose elections. She lost.
Third, the supposed Tea Party Candidate. Jack Davis is a former candidate on the Democrat side for that same seat. He's lost three elections as a Democrat. He only garnered 9% of the vote as a Tea Party candidate. But he really isn't a Tea Pary candidate. He was there to dilute votes from the Republican side. Was he successful? Probably. But not entirely.
It's likely that he received some votes by some that weren't paying attention and just voted for the Tea Party candidate because they believe in the Tea Party positions. But I'd be surprised if his entire 9% was due to that.
Democrats will run as anything they can to win. Hochul may really believe that Obamacare was wrong to remove money from Medicare. We'll see how she ends up being over the next year before the next election.
Republicans need to get their conservative views out there and not hide from them, or hold them back. If they are going to run for a seat, they should be putting their views out there and answering questions. Corwin would not get a huge majority like Lee did in his election, but she still should have received enough votes to win, even with the Tea Party candidate.
The Tea Party needs to step up. They wanted to back one candidate for the Republicans but when their candidate wasn't chosen to run, they wouldn't back the Republican that was. That's fine if she wasn't conservative, however, the Tea Party runs the risk of making themselves irrelevent if they only back people that embrace the Tea Party rather than the one that comes closest to their positions on the issues. They also run the risk of looking incompetent if they don't stand up when they have a phony person running using their name.
The Tea Party in New Yorks 26th district failed. The Republican failed. The Democrats won but not likely because of their message.
This is a perfect example of "lead, follow or get out of the way". The Tea Party failed in New York. They played politics. They didn't lead. They got in the way of the Republican and are partially responsible for electing a liberal Democrat. They didn't stand up for their name by coming out against Jack Davis.
If the Tea Party groups around the country start playing politics like this group did in New York, we're going to be right back where we started from. Politicians getting elected from both parties that don't answer to the people, but instead look out for their own seats (you can take that as the seat they won, or the seat they carry behind them, or both) once they are in office.
You're welcome to comment.