To Feed Or Not To Feed. That Is The Question.

There are two schools of thought. Those who believe that you starve a recession and those who believe you feed a recession, in order to regain a strong economy. If you believe we must starve the recession, you want to cut everything. Cut spending and taxes for business and shrink government. In order to cut spending, the government must curtail or eliminate spending for social services, which is a very small part of the national budget, but maintain defense spending. The only other area available is Social Security and Medicare-Medicaid. It takes up a substantial portion of the budget as does defense. The reason for this is in order to reduce our debt and deficit. If, on the other hand, you believe in feeding the recession, you believe in increased spending in order to spur economic growth which would then pay down the debt and deficit through the increase in revenue from taxes. So what's happening in America. Well like it or not, we're doing a bit of both. Okay, we're doing a lot of both. We had bailouts and we had stimulus. We had cutbacks and we had spending cuts. So, how's that working? Well, the starvers claim we'd have been better off without the stimulus and the feeders claim that the cutbacks slow our economic growth. Okay, who's right? Well it depends on which you are, a starver or a feeder. What do I think? I hate to see our debt increased, but I can't figure out how laying more people off in order to shrink government and placing them in the unemployment lines which increases unemployment compensation costs, which means they have less money to spend, will help our economy to grow. The claim is that by shrinking government it will encourage investment and spending in the private sector. If I just got laid off, or my neighbor did, I don't think I'd be encouraged to spend more. And if I was in business, and fewer people were spending, I don't think I'd be encouraged to invest in more jobs and facilities. I think I'd do just the opposite. But then, I'm not big on starvation.

They Fired Their Doctors. That's The Governemnt For Ya.

Why is it that government whistle-blowers are still treated as criminals or at the very least as tattle-tales? When a government agency is messing up or covering up and somebody reports them, why is it that that agency is allowed to use all sorts of methods to try to get rid of them by firing or giving them bad performance reports or accusing them of wrongdoing. Now, I'm a firm believer in government even though I like to find fault with it. And we all know there's always good reason to find fault with government. Here's the thing though; government is supposed to be there to help and protect the citizens, not the other way around. At least that's the way it's supposed to work in America. And when it isn't working that way, when it's doing harm or wasting money or stealing money, whistle-blowers are supposed to report it. And when they do, the last thing that's supposed to happen to them is to be picked on by the agency they just reported. How can that be fair? Oh, I understand that whistle-blowers still aren't supposed to release confidential information to the press or an enemy, but they certainly should be able to report any information to congress or the president. There's a case now where the FDA fired some doctors who reported the agency to congress and the president. The agency managers tried to bring charges against them, but the government lawyers said they had no case, so they trumped up some bad ratings and fired them. Now I can understand how some managers could be upset because an underling ratted on them, but hey, they were doing wrong and it could have harmed people. Maybe is harming people. Here's the thing, we need government agencies to protect us, but we need to be able to trust those agencies. If we can't, then I fail to see the value of those agencies. Maybe those managers need to think about that. Rather than whistle-blowers getting fired, maybe the managers should be fired. I wonder if any department heads have ever thought of that?

The Ralph Cramden Moon Colony.

Hey, they're pickin on poor Newt Gingrich. They're laughing at Newt for his speech on the Space coast of Florida, about having a moon colony in eight years. Well, fair enough, eight years is a bit short. But the idea isn't so strange after all. Let's not forget that JFK took a little heat from a few folks when he said we would land a man on the moon in ten years, when we hadn't even gotten into space yet. The thing was that it was a time when America needed a challenge. We met that challenge because we are America. Well guess what? We're at a point where we need a new dramatic challenge. It's not the first time a permanent moon station has been mentioned. And that trip to the moon gave us mountains of new technology that we're all enjoying today. What's to suggest a new challenge wouldn't provide us with much more technology. So maybe eight years is a little short, but not as crazy as many pundits and politicians are claiming. Oh ye of little faith. Now I don't want you to get the wrong idea. Personally I think Newt Gingrich is more than a little eccentric. And that's as nice as I can say it. What I really think is that he's a conniving, egocentric, prevaricator. He would be a disaster as president. And I believe he has no chance of even getting the nomination let alone being elected in November. He's not presidential material, but his idea for a moon colony isn't all that silly. Now his mention of statehood for that moon colony, that is crazy. Can you imagine? Claiming the moon by giving it statehood? What's he planning? A big sign that reads WE LIKE NEWT? Or maybe BUY AMERICAN? Or how about DON'T TRUST ARABS OR CHINESE OR RUSSIANS OR HISPANICS OR ITALIANS OR IRISH OR ANYONE BUT ME? There's room enough ya know, because the moon's big enough. Hey, it's just a thought.

Out Of The Huddle On New Technology.

Well, another green energy company has declared bankruptcy. A car battery company that also received a couple of hundred million in grant money. I can't wait to hear the, I TOLD YA SO, chorus. I guess people forget easily when it could be an argument for the other side. I don't have a list, but in any new technology research and development, you are guaranteed to have some failures. Maybe a lot of failures before you win the day. I do have a couple of examples to share. The Japanese have been working on a "fast breeder" nuclear power plant since the 1960s. They've spent literally many tens of billions of dollars on it. Now, after some sixty years they can't afford to continue the research that even the researchers admit may not provide a commercial reactor until the 2050s. The other is the development of the atomic bomb during WW11. They tried many time and failed many times to make it work. finally they went ahead without even testing one. Now, being able to say "I told ya so" doesn't make you a scientist or an engineer and certainly not in that field. What it does do is to point out that you are a very accomplished second guesser. You would make an excellent Monday Morning Quarterback. Then again, maybe not. Because a few failures doesn't render a science wrong or worthless. What it does mean is that they need to step back and take a look at where they are and whether or not it's worth proceeding. That call is best made with the researchers input. And that input should carry some heavy weight. The thing is, from outside, you just don't know how close they came to or are to, getting it right. The fact that this car battery company is filing for bankruptcy protection, doesn't mean they won't succeed in the next year or so. What if they do make a breakthrough? Where will these Monday Morning Quarterbacks be then? Why they'll claim they knew it all the time. Don't ya just love it?

Don't Balance It On My Account.

Boy, one thing I like to hear is that a state is balancing it's budget and not raising taxes. And ya know what? Most states are doing a pretty good job at it. Oh, some states still have a ways to go, but the important thing is, they're trying and succeeding. There are just a few things that bother me about that though. I just read that a lot of states are balancing their budgets by means that aren't necessarily in the peoples best interests. Take state parks as an example. Millions of people visit state parks each year and especially in these difficult economic times, they're visiting even more. Well that is, if their favorite state parks are still open and still providing all their services. Now it's true, most wealthy folks don't bother with state parks too much. they're too busy jetting off to here or there for vacations in the Caribbean or the French Riviera, or Paris in the spring, or Vail in the winter, but then they're only about one percent of the people. So if the state governments close or curtail state parks, it doesn't hurt the rich. But it does hurt the rest of us. So why is it so important to close state parks? In order to save money, shrink government and not raise taxes on the wealthy. Well, that seems like the honorable thing to do. Do you suppose those folks would have gotten elected if they had campaigned on the promise to close state parks? Eh, maybe not, but it didn't hurt to promise not to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry, at least in Pennsylvania. And state parks aren't the only areas of savings that bother me a bit. I think the absolute worst place to cut, is in education. But then I didn't get elected to any state government. Come to think of it, I didn't run. Come to realize it, I should have run. Not that I would have won election, but at least then I wouldn't feel so guilty about not showing more interest in what happens in capitals all over the country. As it is, not raising taxes hasn't solved all our problems. It hasn't paid down the debt and deficit all over the country, it hasn't put folks back to work, it hasn't spurred wealthy folks to grow jobs in industries, or very much anywhere else. But one thing a lot of people can say. They can say they won't be going to their favorite state park this weekend.

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Above Reproach.

You may recall that on occasion I have been known to find fault with the judiciary. Which brings me to an article in the N.Y.Times about a Wisconsin Supreme Court judge who has refused to recuse himself from a case where one of the law firms in the case has represented him in the past and he still owes money to them. He has voted with the majority in the case in a 5-4 decision in favor of that law firm's client. Now I suppose it could be just coincidence, but you could ask almost anyone in the country and they'd tell you he is corrupt. Would it help you to learn that he won the election to the court by beating an incumbent by stating that his opponent had arranged for a rapist to be released? The fact is that the rapist served his full sentence. How does the Wisconsin Supreme Court allow this guy to sit on any case involving that law firm? How about the case of two judges in Northeastern Pennsylvania who had an arrangement with a detention center to be paid for every youth sent there and then regularly advised youths they wouldn't need a lawyer. In that case they did go to jail. Does anyone but me see a problem in these two cases? Does anyone think these are lone examples of an otherwise perfect system? Our federal Supreme Court justices are not required to follow any set of rules of ethics. So a justice can sit on cases where his spouse is involved directly, either with the law firm or one of the subjects in the case. Let's look at it this way, if you're in court to make an impartial statement about a company or person and it's later found that you were closely connected to that company or person, how would that affect you and your statement? My guess is that your statement would be thrown out and you would be standing in front of the judge to answer why, right? I don't mean these judges are deceitful or corrupt or anything like that. But maybe, just maybe they are. See, it's all in the perception. And when it comes to people charged with the responsibility of deciding who's right and who's wrong, perception is everything.

What Is Your Vote Worth?

There was an article in the Washington Post this morning by Charles Lane titled "Deciding the president by popular vote is a flawed idea". He's against it. Yep, Mr Lane thinks that the electoral college is the best thing since sliced bread. And he particularly likes the two party system. He thinks it's just right for us. Any more parties would just cause trouble and maybe even get us a president that didn't even win a majority of the votes. That's why he doesn't like the popular (one person, one vote) vote idea. It might mean that small states wouldn't get much say while big states would. In other words, it's more important that states with small populations should never-the-less get to have a prominent say in just who gets elected. What I don't understand is why, in a country that pays so much homage to majorities, why small minorities get to have more say than they have population? I mean, I understand that while the majority rules, it must protect the rights of the minority. So it's not like the big states with the large majorities will decide to place inhumane restrictions on the small states. Although I've been in most thinly populated states and they could do with some restrictions. Just not inhumane. The thing is, I don't think that our two party system is working very well. I think our two party system would work much better if it had two less parties. And the electoral college doesn't work well either. Mr Lane points out that while Al Gore got about 500,000 more votes than George W Bush in the 2000 campaign and yet lost, he was "pretty much unmoved". The thing is, whether you liked Gore or Bush, doesn't change the fact that a man with fewer votes still won. And I'm fairly certain that this wasn't the first time it happened. And I'll bet it won't be the last. Now if you liked Bush, you may be happy. But what about the time that's coming when someone you don't like will win that way? What will your opinion be then? Actually, Mr Lane isn't completely against the idea. He does point out that in California every 677,000 people get one electoral vote, but Wyoming's 563,000 citizens get three. His point is that no system is completely fair. He also points out that small states could stop a constitutional convention from changing the system. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

A cruel End For A Great Coach.

I have resisted any mention, in this blog, of the tragedy at Penn State. Sandusky is surely the lowest in Penn State's storied history. And I can find no humor in it. I care not what happens to him, but I, like most people sat by as coach Paterno was dragged down for doing exactly what he was supposed to do. Because he didn't do more. Well fair enough. A man through his mid seventies to mid eighties may not be perfect in his actions. But it went much further than that. Pundits and late night comedians tore him up. Even the Big Ten has not shown itself to be very "BIG" in it's rush to get in on the degradation of this once iconic coach. But we can be proud of the Board Of Trustees of Pennsylvania State University for treating him with at least some measure of respect and for showing the courage of firing him in a phone call. The reason given for that was because they were concerned for their own safety. A brave move destined to characterize them as heroes. Not even a thank you for half a century of support, both vocally and financially, not to mention the drive to build men of high moral character in his teams. What other coach of a major university's athletics department has worked for so little and given back so much over so long a period of time. And still won't find fault with the way he was treated. It isn't the fault of the university that this tragedy has happened. Nor is it JoPa's fault That fault lies with one monster. But the heroism shown by this universities Board Of Directors suggests they need to all be replaced as quickly as possible. And they certainly don't deserve thanks for their service.

It's No Spoof. SuperPACs Fill A Necessary Void.

How dare Stephen Colbert mock SuperPACs! Why the man even has his own. Or it was his until he decided to form an exploratory committee to run for president. At which time in a sham move to end run the law, he turned it over to his friend and TV next door neighbor, Jon Stewart. Legally he's not allowed to influence his SuperPAC, but has made a mockery of that as well. Folks, this is serious business. We can't have people going around flaunting and snubbing the decisions of our Supreme Court. That 5-4 vote in the Citizens United case is all that stands between we the people and having corporations being disenfranchised. Can you imagine what this country would look like if corporations were not allowed to spend money, anonymously, in huge amounts, on political campaigns? Why, the mere thought of it sends chills up the spines of campaign managers all over America. No Mr. Colbert. No matter what you may think is funny or necessary, our politicians need this infusion of untold wealth in order to properly confuse the voting public. Either that or convince the electorate not to vote at all. Consider my own Super PAC, P.I.M.P. (Put In My Pocket) which I turned over to a completely neutral owner, my only sister, so that I can continue to carry out my formula for success in the campaign. I hope you'll join me and all the other serious candidates in praising and thanking our Supreme Court for it's brave decision to open these well deserved flood gates of corporate largess. Remember, since corporations are people too, the next time you meet one, shake it's hands and offer to help carry that secret money to the local SuperPAC of it's choice. Especially if it just happens to be my Super PAC. Oh, and while you're in the mood to help, please get me the names from your local cemetery for election day. We need those votes.

Argh Matie, We're No Pirates.

Tell me, what's your opinion of SOPA and PIPA? Acronyms are so misleading aren't they? I mean SOPA could sound a little like a bad rendition of an Italian soap commercial while PIPA could be misconstrued to be about a peeping tom. Actually PIPA is the Senate's version of SOPA, the House bill covering Internet piracy. Okay, now I'll bet you're in favor of them, aren't you? Well unless you've been watching the news or got cut off from your favorite wickapedia searches or googles. Yet it seems Hollywood and the Recording Industry are fer it and the Internet Providers are agin it. It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys all over again. Well, all except for the shooten and killen. But there's one court case where a couple of guys are being sued for $80,000 and $22,500 for pirating some songs. Now I don't think it's right to copy something that somebody else made without paying for it. The folks that make songs and movies have a right to be paid for their work and their talent. I'm just not convinced any song is worth $80,000 per listener, but the artist should be paid. But that's not the question about the congressional bills. The question is, will they, if they become law, will they cut too deeply into our freedoms and our privacy in order to enforce the laws? You, and I, use a computer. You may even know how to download songs and or movies. I wish I did. If I skip a few days, I've got to get somebody to show me how to turn the dumb thing on. Sometimes I have a problem finding this blog in order to write another entry. But that's another issue. The thing is, Uncle Sam is already a partner in nearly everything I do or say. Who knows when they might be listening to me rant or complain to some poor customer service representative. I know the company does. How many lists am I on? Am I on a watch list because I have a beard? Or might it be because I only "rarely" complain about Congress. At least one news agency suggests that if anyone copies any part of any news article printed in any paper, that person can be subject to litigation. Do you realize that in this post, there are words that were in at least one of their news articles? I'm doomed for opening my mouth. Or in this case, I'm doomed for punching a few keys. Is there a way to slow piracy without becoming overreaching?

So You Want To Amend The Constitution. That'll Be The Day.

Well, how do ya like the way the Republican primary campaign is going so far? Do ya like the way the ads are coming out from SuperPACs against nearly every candidate? They're not all that friendly. In fact I think you could say they are quite unfriendly. All the candidates say the ads against them are unfair and untrue but those favoring them are accurate and fair, as they attack the other candidates. I think it was hard enough before the Supreme Court decided the Citizen United case, to figure out which candidate would be the best to lead us. At least it was for those who honestly wanted to know that information. You know, those who weren't going to vote the party man whoever it was. So unless you were strictly a herd voter who votes the party, if you actually think about the process, it was hard to wade through the silliness and get down to the truth, no matter which you might choose. But now, with all those extra billions of dollars, or even trillions of dollars, it's even harder. But what can you do? That's the way things go, right? Aah, actually, NO. There's some action starting up by activist groups who are looking to make a constitutional change. An  Amendment to the Constitution. That's a really big step. They're even considering including a statement in the Amendment that corporations are not people, for the purpose of elections. Wouldn't that be something. But amendments are very hard and time consuming efforts. So what it really boils down to is, do you think a corporation should be able to purchase the presidency or not? Is freedom all about having enough money to change the outcome of an election, or is it about one vote for each person? Which should count more, your vote or a billionaire's deep pockets? If you think your vote is more important, you're kidding yourself. That is unless you favor a change to the constitution, But before we could even get to a Constitutional Convention, a 2/3 super majority of both houses of congress has to vote for it or 38 states have to approve of it with 2/3 majority of their legislatures.  In order for that to happen, we need to make sure that a lot of extra stuff doesn't get slipped into it to cause it to be defeated. We need a clean bill and a clean amendment. Whatta ya think of its chances? Maybe yes and maybe no. But we can hope. Just remember, hope works best when we work for it.

The Good The Bad And The Fattening.

I just read two letters to the Washington Post Editor. First there was the one, "Saving The Twinkie" followed by "Making Soda Drinkers Pay". The first bemoans the bankruptcy of the maker of Twinkies while the other feels it appropriate to place a tax on soft drinks. both made good solid points. Why should Goldman Sacks and the other Wall Street Banks get bailed out while the very nutritious Twinkie be allowed to go under? On the other hand if people want to drink that unhealthy brew, let em pay a tax that would help to cover the health care costs for drinking that stuff. Two food groups discussed, one swooned over, the other reviled. The first letter makes the unsubstantiated claim that Twinkies can still be fresh even after 100 years on the shelf, the other claims it's target causes obesity and other health issues. If we continue to have such diversity of opinion, we'll never come together as a nation. So here's a suggestion to get us moving down the road to healthy discourse. It's a way to bring us closer together and help to find solutions to our discord. One good, one bad, but together, they're just fairly good or fairly bad. If we ask the EPA and Food and Drug to combine the two into one big splurge of over-indulgement, we might find a Utopian universe where healthy is taxable and unhealthy is applaudable. I can see ads claiming that a coke and a twinkie go together like a heart attack and diabetes. Get your fix on route 66. A sweet shop next to every hospital. Yes folks, there's an answer to every problem under the sun.

Can't Wait To Move Into The White House.

Well we're well into the primary campaign season and I haven't even begun to campaign yet. Some of my most ardent supporters have been asking when I plan to start. Only this evening she asked if I was actually running. Such a sweet heart she is. Yes my dear, your grandfather is running for president of the United States of America. But my plan isn't to waste time in all these pesky state intramurals. I'm waiting for both conventions to do my thing. That's right, I plan to cross file and run in both parties in the general election. Of course I must first win the nomination in both conventions. My plan to accomplish this is simple and straight forward. I plan to sweep in and steal the vote. No, I mean I intend to steal the votes and change the names on the ballots to mine. One problem that has come up concerns my Super PAC P.I.M.P. (Put In My Pocket). It seems that the law is explicit in that I can have no contact with it or anyone connected with it. It turns out that I have to divest myself of anything to do with it. so I offered it, that is the ownership of it, to my wife. She declined with the proviso that she be allowed to have a P.I.M.P. credit card with no limit. I needed to find someone else with whom I have no contact, who will do exactly what I want done, without being in contact with me at any time in any way. My sister has graciously accepted the position. Now back to the plan of attack. You see, by waiting until the conventions and then liberating those votes from all those unworthy candidates from both parties and replacing them with votes for myself, I stand an excellent chance of winning the general election. Now, please, bare in mind, this is highly confidential, for as you might guess, if word leaked out, it could spell defeat for us. Not to mention incarceration. But please do keep all that card and letter coming in. I've read and reread it and am now ready to hear from someone else. Oh and by the way, I'll be happy to send my mother's recipe for chili sauce along as soon as I can find it.

The Etiquette Of Party Discourse.

Have you ever been dragged to a get-together by your spouse when you knew in advance you weren't going to enjoy yourself? No I'm not talking about a family reunion. I'm talking about an occasion where you probably don't know any or many of the folks that will be in attendance. It's not at all like a family reunion were you do know the players, but just don't like them. Well when you get to this "get-together" and you look around, exactly what is it that you're looking for? I'll tell you. You're looking for another, like souled, poor dumb sucker in the same boat as you. How can you tell if somebody is just like you? First they will have a stunned look on their face that says, why am I here? What did I do to deserve this? So you spot the target. But this is only the first step.The next thing you have to do is determine if he or she is of the same social stratum as you. Now that may not be the same stratum as your spouse or his/her spouse. You ease on over to where you can see what the target is drinking and or eating. If it's the same type as yours, you're most likely, in. But what if it's not? What if you like a tall cold one and the target wants an extra dry one. Maybe you like the shrimp while the target prefers something you can't even pronounced. Or what if the opposite is the case? Now comes the time to say something. You've exhausted all other possibilities for other conversation and it's time to take the plunge or sit in a corner and brood all evening. "What about those Colts", you say? "Oh yes. I think mine will make a fine trotter" comes the response. This may not be what you were hoping for. "The Colts don't play in Harlem", you retort. "They don't trot in Harlem either" he shoots back. Well at least your talking. That's an improvement. Next you need to try to find something you might have in common. Good luck with that. You desperately want another tall cold one and in all likelihood your new mate desperately wants a new conversation, preferably with someone who understands the basics of equestrian topics. You, on the other hand still want that tall cold one. That and that quiet corner to brood in. When you find it, guess who got there first?

Congress Is Like The Romper Room.

I just read that the IRS believes that about $400 billion is lost to America because of tax evasion each year. So if you cheat on your taxes, you're contributing to this countries debt and deficit. The thing is, congress is trying  to cut the IRS budget. Now if they have less to work with, they will be less able to collect that money and if they're forced to do less investigating, it's very likely that even more money will be lost to government coffers. There's two ways to look at this news. You could say that you should pay your full share of taxes for a change or, you might decide this would be a good time to cheat. Now in the first example, you know you shouldn't have been cheating in the first place and in the second example, you shouldn't be considering cheating at a time like this when our country needs all the help it can get. My question is why would the congress want to defund the IRS in the first place? Isn't it the only source of income we have? Or at least the main source, by a long shot. I understand many in congress are unhappy with the income tax laws as they currently exist, but that's not the IRS' fault. Actually it's the congress' fault. So I guess if you're mad about the program you're watching on TV, you should shoot the TV? Congress needs to grow up. I understand being an adult is not as much fun as being a misbehaving child, and if that's what you want to be, it's okay, but then you should get out of congress. Because congress needs some adult supervision for a change. What we need in congress is a group of serious adults who have the best interest of the country in mind and even more importantly, the best interests of the people uppermost in their minds. And by that I don't mean their individual party. It would be best if they don't consider their party affiliation at all. That can only happen if these folks are actually adults. In the true spirit of the term.

Why Should Business Or Governmemnt Win?

The political belief in small government, or at least small federal government by shunting most decision making to the states is a federalist belief. In business it's Creative Destruction that's the favored approach. Now don't get me wrong, there are good and valid points in both. Smaller government can help in many ways and on  many issues. We all agree however, that the federal government needs to do the military thing and in foreign relations we need to appear and be strong and many if not most inter-state activity needs to be handled by a strong Fed. Otherwise the states would begin to act like separate little countries. There's little agreement on social safety nets, therefore the problem with states is that no two states provide equally for the well being of it's citizens. In some instances there needs to be guidelines for the states to follow. That would need to come from the Fed. There are many other issues as well. Now, in business, the thinking is Creative Destruction. Simply put, that means it may be necessary to destroy a company in order to remake it more profitable. In some cases it means to modernize, or switch to robotics or in some cases it means to ship jobs overseas. The important obligation is always to increase profits when it comes to creative destruction. Profits is all that matters in the long run. And from a strictly business outlook, that's correct. The problem is that life, the world, involves more than strict business decisions. In the real world there are people to consider. The coal industry is a handy example although every industry has had to sort these things out. In the coal industry, safety has always been an issue. Left to their own devises, the coal barons would never have submitted to safe working conditions. That's been proven even by recent events in the industry. The same is true for environmental issues. There must be a balance between business's creative destruction and the peoples needs, and that means government oversight. If business was more focused on human interests they might make less in profits, but they would have a better relationship with labor and still make a profit, just not as large a profit. Since that won't happen on it's own, a strong federal government is necessary to insure it will happen. So while small government is good for industry and the creative destruction theory, neither is good for people. The trick is to find that middle ground or sweet spot. What we need is a few Rebublicrats and Democans. Maybe more than a few. That can't happen in our current two party system. Too much rancor.

Inequality In America? Hrumph! Certainly Not.

Well I just read an article in the National Review by Michael Tanner "The income inequality myth" . It suggests that there really isn't a broadening of inequality of income for several reasons. One is that because of some minor changes in tax rules, income that didn't used to get reported in now getting reported and on the other end, the reports supporting the idea of income inequality increases didn't include such things as food stamps, health care and other social remedies. Now of course the National Review is a very conservative report. But even considering that fact, how do they get information that wealthy people didn't used to report some income? That would be against the law. I Think it's called tax evasion, isn't it? Do you think that when the questionnaire went out, people responded that, yes, they had previously under reported on income? Did these folks sign their names to the questionnaire? And if they were willing to cheat on their taxes in the past, should we believe that now that the tax rate is slightly lower, they don't cheat any more? Exactly at what point did they make this decision? If the tax had been one dollar more, would they have cheated again? How about two dollars? Because that would be good information for the IRS. The second item of proof for not believing in income inequality is the Food Stamp statement. Apparently there were no food stamps a decade ago. No employee health care then either. Ya wanna know what I think? I think that income is being reported now that wasn't previously reported because it's income not being earned before. That and if there are more food stamps now, it's because most people's effective income is lower now. That, and companies used to pay most or all of health care costs, but don't anymore. You can poke more holes in Mr. Tanner's opinion than there are in a screen door. I don't mean to be a wisenheimer, but Mr. Tanner needs to find some new excuses for inequality or switch sides. On Second thought, we're fine with him right where he is.

We Ain't Yemen. Not Yet.

I was interested in a news item in the Washington Post this morning. It was about the youth in Yemen. It was titled "In Yemen's political crises, children pay highest price". With all the problems in the world and here at home, I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to Yemen. Have you? Well maybe we should. The article goes on to point out how the children in this torn country are suffering and will do so for many years to come. That's true of most countries that have experienced war or what amounts to war. What caught my attention is that, although we aren't experiencing war here in America, we are experiencing what in many ways mimics war. Because of the severe recession in this country, but even more, because of the political war that's continuing, I worry about our youth. Look, in order to get our financial houses under control, our national government, our states and even our local towns and school systems are cutting spending. All the while they do it, they tell us that this is needed to provide for and protect our children's futures. That's hogwash. If it were true, then they wouldn't be attacking the education our children will need  in order to function in their futures. They wouldn't be defunding the programs to feed them, see to their health, heat their homes and a slew of other programs aimed at improving children's lives. But that's what is happening to the exclusion of nearly all other sources of savings or, more importantly, other sources of income. Now I agree, nobody likes taxes and, certainly, nobody wants to pay more taxes. But here's the thing.There's only two ways to balance the ledger. You cut costs or raise revenue. And of course, kids can't vote, so guess who pays the price? It may be clever politics to take from children and claim you're helping them, but it's anything but good fiscal policy. Why? Because when you get old and unable to work, guess who's gonna have to support you and the country?

If Education Is So Important, Why Isn't Congress doing Anything About It?

By golly, the National Memo had a good idea this morning. Something about how China defunded liberal arts degrees for college students which means that if a Chinese student wants to get such a degree, he'll have to pay for it himself. Boy, what if we could do something like that in America. Thing is though, right now, scholarships aren't based on the need for students in critical fields for the most part. In America, scholarships are reserved for the brightest and the poorest no matter what they want to study. But wouldn't it make sense to add the provision that all scholarships be reserved for those people provided they take the courses most needed by our society? I mean, if we really don't need more social workers, phys-ed teachers, or whatever, why train more? They'll only end up unemployed and living at home or flipping burgers and living at home. How about offering scholarships to anyone who needs one who has the aptitude in the fields where we need to compete internationally for jobs. Hey, if we needed buggy whip designers, then give scholarships for it. The rest can and should get scholarships to trade schools in the same needed fields, or pay for their own education. I look at a scholarship as a reward for doing or being something special. Well if you're led to a field we need folks to be in, isn't that special? Then why not give that reward for it. Ya know what? In the long run, it just might not cost more to do it this way. It would mean more funding up front, but it would surely mean much more in  income tax down the road. And for a lot more years than two or four or five years for the degree. Such a plan would accomplish everything we need to regain our edge in education and science and math, as well as innovation and entrepreneurship. Being educated, having a college degree, doesn't automatically mean you will be successful in your life. The right area of study can be as close to that automatic success as you're gonna find.

It Was A Two Headed Caucus.

Ya know the Iowa Caucuses we watched last Tuesday? The ones that had the whole country excited to hear who would be the winner? The one who's winner won by eight votes? Yep that one. Well I just read some interesting things about it in the National Memo. Here are a few noteworthy items you may not have known. Like that fact that 5.5% of eligible voters in Iowa took part in it. 5.5%! There were almost that many candidates. Here's another one.  The winner of the caucuses doesn't get any voter delegates. That's right. The twenty five state delegates will be picked in a separate caucus. It was all for show. The whole country was on pins and needles waiting to hear who would be the winner of?  Nothing. Bragging rights I guess. Now that I think about it, I wondered why no mention was made of who got how many delegates. Nobody got any, that's why. I feel like asking for my money back. Even though I didn't buy a ticket. But I did pay my cable bill. And I think I got cheated. It's like going to a carnival and buying a ticket to see the two headed woman and then finding out one was just a paper-mache head taped onto her shoulder. I'll tell ya I was disappointed. But not as disappointed as I was to hear about this hoax perpetrated on us by Iowa and the media. Actually Iowa only duped the candidates. It was the media that duped the rest of us. Why would they do that to us? Why would they get us all excited to see who was going to be the first winner in the nominating campaign when there wasn't any winner yet? Not even a vote yet? You don't suppose it was done in order to make a profit off it, do ya? But the candidates are the ones who should be most upset. None of them got anything out of it but empty pockets. Well Santorum got to spend time in all 99 counties of Iowa. I'll bet that's something he'll cherish for years to come. I know I would. Just think, years from now all those candidates, all seven hundred of them, or was it only only seven, well anyway years from now, they can look back and say to themselves how much time and money they spent in Iowa for no good, or even bad, reason. No wonder only 5.5% showed up. And for this, Iowa gets tons of attention and publicity. That's what I call smart advertising.

I Remember Recess. It Was In Grade School.

When is Congress in recess? I think we all know the answer to that question. Far too often, that's when. And during a congressional recess the president has the right to special, one year appointments to positions that the Senate hasn't acted on. Now there's two problems here. First the Senate shouldn't hold up appointments of needed personnel just because they don't like the President or his choice or the department the appointee will head. But sometimes they do. The second point is that this is a rather poor law that does allow a president to ignore the Senate, even if he ought to do just that. Nearly all, if not all, presidents have done it. George W. Bush did it twice as often as Obama, but in between times, the Senate decided to try to stop the practice by trying to change some Senate rules. Now some Senators claim that they are always in session, even when there's nobody in the Senate but the cleaning lady. When all the Senators are home for the holidays or to do some greatly needed campaigning, they claim the Senate is still in session. How can they do that? Well, every few days one Senator shows up, opens the Senate, under the condition that no business may be conducted, and ten seconds later closes again so he can go home. I imagine they take turns. I like to call this the Phony Senate or maybe it could be the Ghosts Of Senates Present. So what do you think about this ghostly trickery the Senate is trying to pull off. Well, President Obama has challenged them to a ghostly duel. He made four recess appointments. One, Mr Richard Cordray, to head the new Consumer Protection Agency and three to the Labor Relations Board to fill vacancies. The minority Republican Senators are really upset about it. They don't like this law that set up the Consumer Protection Agency and have never liked the Labor Relation Board, even when they had mostly Republicans on it. Well what you or I think of these appointments doesn't matter. That's because I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court will decide the answer. But whether it matters or not, I think that the Senate should try to be a little more honest. If they're going to be in session, then they need to be there. And not just a few. If not, then they're in recess. Well, except maybe for Halloween.

Can You Give Me One Good Reason To Turn On The TV?

Well the folks in Iowa will finally be able to watch TV without being deluged by political attack ads. As for the rest of the country, yours is coming. It's not the final rest though. After all, this was just the warm up for the general election. Just one of many preliminary events. Then of course, there's the next campaign after 2012. Do you know anybody who wouldn't happily trade this current atmosphere of bitter rivalry for almost anything offered? It's not that politicians have become despicable liars and dispensers of untruths so much as that politicians no longer have a clue what's important to the health, safety and welfare of all people. They only know that it's going to take a sharp tongue and a fat bank account to keep getting elected and reelected. Now I assure you that your favorite elected official is interested in the desires of people other than himself. There's no question about it. He is adamant about seeing to it that his wealthy benefactors receive all the necessary opportunities they need to continue to support his cause. That includes invitations to his fundraisers as well as special tax incentives and sweetheart contracts that will allow them to raise a little fund for themselves as well. There's nothing new about this way of doing business. It's been going on since the dawn of time. It even has an old and venerable name attached to it. Corruption. Now corruption is not a bad thing when it's between friends. I mean, if you want to give your friend a helping hand in finding a job or feeding his family, that's a form of corruption that's widely practiced and socially acceptable, even lauded. But when it's handled in a way that perpetuates underhanded and unfair business practices and harms society, then it's called "politics as usual". The problem is that politics as usual, is usually the problem with politics. And there's always, 24/7, a TV talking head ready to talk about it, incessantly.

I'd Like To Have A nickel For Every Lie.

I can't believe it. Sixteen million dollars was spent on the Republican campaign for the Iowa
Caucuses. Sixteen million! Dollars! That's enough to repair 300 structurally deficient bridges in Iowa. Of course if you live in Iowa, I'm pretty sure you won't be surprised. In fact if you live there, you may think all the money in the world was spent on that campaign. Now remember that Iowa is a somewhat small state and this is only the primary season. We haven't gotten to the actual general election campaign. I can't even begin to guess what they're going to spend on that. What gets me is probably 75% of that money was spent on negative advertising. So it wasn't and won't be about what it is that a candidate will or won't do, it was and will be about how to make the other guy look like he's the wrong guy for the job. And much of it, if not all will be untrue. See how kind I was? That's right, there will be so many lies told that nobody, not even the candidates being attacked, will know for sure if it was them being attacked or if they actually did such dastardly things. Now these ads won't actually lie, they'll just bend the truth until the truth squeals. Then they'll take words from this speech and insert them in that speech and change the meaning of what was actually said so that it sounds like they actually did say those dastardly thing. Is that a good use of all that money? Way, way over a Billion dollars before this election is done. Should we be spending that much money on electing somebody who isn't willing to say what needs to be said or do what needs to be done? And if you throw in congress, it's even more money and more lies. Where do you suppose all this money comes from? I can tell you this much it isn't all coming from poor people or even the middle class. I can tell you that much. So if it isn't coming from poor or middle class people, then it must be coming from Job Creator. My question is this. If they have all this money to spend on elections, how come they didn't spend it on creating jobs? I think the answer is, it's cheaper to buy a president or congressman than it is to create a job. And not as risky.

Why Don't Political Parties Like Voters?

For some reason, this year we're seeing some rather mean-spirited political maneuvering taking place. It's not just one party or the other, it's both. Just not in the same places. Of course gerrymandering is rampant, but then that happens every ten years when the party in control of a state legislature, and especially if the governor is of the same party, gets to redesign the state. But this year seems to be even more underhanded. Take for instance Virginia with the most difficult set of rules covering everything from getting on the ballet to voters being required to sign a pledge, in the primaries, to vote for their party's nominee in the general election. You heard that right. In Virginia, if you vote in the primaries, you will be required to pledge to support your party's nominee. I can't imagine that that is even legal. In other states they're trying to figure out how to keep certain groups and demographics from voting at all. How? By requiring unusual residency rules, voter photo IDs, which are for some folks, expensive and difficult to obtain. The claim here is to eliminate voter fraud. But they can't offer any proof there is any voter fraud. Then there are states like Pennsylvania, Texas and most other states where voting districts are mapped out by the ruling party. Did you know that in California, there's a congressional district along the coast where the district is cut into two sections that do not border one another? It's like being asked by an outsider how to get to another town and telling them you can't get there from here. You have to start somewhere else. I guess what both political parties want is for all citizens to just turn over the election process to them and stay out of it. Instead, I think citizens need to tell political parties to stay out of it. We've been doing it, voting, for enough years that we could do it without the help or hindrance of the political parties. What we should say is if you're a Democrat, you are not allowed to vote. If you're a Republican, you're not allowed to vote. But if you're a member of any other party, you're not allowed to vote either. Except New Years Eve party members. They can vote. But only if they disavow any other party affiliations.

I Wouldn't Mind If They Would Tell Time.

Half the country is running around worried sick about the national debt and deficit while the other half is worried about finding or keeping a job. So which is more important? Some say that if we don't address the debt and deficit our children's future will be destroyed, while others say that by cutting funding for education and research, there won't be a future to destroy. It's a little like the chicken or egg question. Which comes first? So lets take a look at the problem. If debt and deficit are more important, how will we pay them down if we keep laying off more and more people thereby eliminating the tax income we were getting from them? Isn't it more important to get more people working instead of more unemployed? And if we keep cutting spending, and our infrastructure keeps deteriorating, how will we be able to continue to compete with the rest of the world? And if our already weakening education system continues to slide for lack of funding, how will we be able to compete with the rest of the world in innovation which is the engine of success in the world's economy? Shouldn't we be trying to figure out how to solve these problems instead of bickering? Can you picture the new year as anything but a gotcha politics orgy? Right through to November? What if the Republicans came up with a great idea that would solve the all problems at once? Does anyone think they'd spell it out or try to enact it? Or that the Democrats wouldn't shout it down? What if the Democrats came up with that great idea? How likely would the Republicans be to endorse it? 2012 is destined to be a lost year. Well except for TV advertising and sign makers. Oh and don't forget the media and pundits. They'll make a killing. The thing is, we keep hiring politicians to solve problems and they keep creating more problems. Now they're trying to convince us to hire or rehire a whole mess of folks. What's to say the new crop will be any different than the old crop? They're like a cheap watch. They just won't work after you buy them.

The Washington Post, Congress And Elvis.

I'm picking a fight with the Washington Post this morning. They've got an editorial in about how they think this country should stop subsidizing electric cars. They also mention we stopped subsidizing corn-based-ethanol. Can't say I disagree with that one. Corn-ethanol subsidies were screwing up the food production chain. But subsidizing electric cars makes sense. Look, all new technology needs help getting started. If it weren't for government help and research, half of the technology we have today, maybe more, still wouldn't exist including the computer. You have only to look at Germany and China to see how their assistance is helping their solar and wind energy industries clean our clocks. And take our jobs. But to hear congress tell it, such investment in research is wasteful in the extreme. Congress is convinced the only research we need to do is to research how quickly we can run a pipeline from Canada to Texas in order to refine dirty Tar Sands oil into clean exportable fuel so our giant oil industry can make even greater profits. I'm not sure how that helps us and I'm not sure how refusing to support research into new and emerging technology helps us either. I'll bet if you found a way to convert desert sand into clean burning, efficient energy, but it would take a twenty dollar bill to perfect it, I doubt congress would help you. And I'm beginning to wonder if the Washington Post would recommend it. For some reason, they just don't want America to move on. It's the old story of "it was good enough for my parents and me, it's good enough for the future". I wonder why they didn't feel the same way about the Iron Horse? And Hooped Skirts". Maybe they did. Maybe Elvis isn't dead after all. Maybe he's in congress. All shook up over progress. The Washington Post should look into that and leave technological research funding to them what knows better. What say you?

Ever Make A Mistake?

Good morning and welcome to the first day of 2012. This being Sunday, I paid a visit to my local church. I had gotten word that last week, Christmas day, after thee Christmas Eve services with the last one getting over around 1:AM., The minister made a fatal mistake. It's claimed he read his sermon. Now I don't know if he actually did read it or some folks just wanted something to complain about. In any event I offered some sage advise to the pastor this morning. "If you must read your sermon, do it with your mouth closed" was my advise. Needless to say my advise wasn't all that well received. See, that's the problem with advise. There's always more than one way to interpret it. I could have meant that he should have acted like a ventriloquist and invited one of the dummies to stand next to him while he read the sermon, mouth closed, throwing his voice or I could have meant that reading a sermon is not up to the theatrical performance this congregation is accustomed to, so read it only in you study in preparation of giving it without notes. See? Either way I'm bound to anger someone. It just depends on who I want to upset. There must be a way that I could have given the advise without angering somebody or there should be a way for me to upset both parties. Giving advise is hard work, just ask your minister or priest. Nobody wants advise. Everybody wants to be assured they're doing everything just right. But if you're going to tell someone who has made a mistake they're wrong, it's best if you do it without reading your accusation. You really do need to look and sound like you are the only one that noticed it and it will forever remain our little secret. If you show that you've written it down, you're not going to be convincing. Of course there's always the option of keeping my mouth shut. But then that would be out of character.