The Art Of The Lie.

It's okay to lie. Or at least it's legal to lie. It's in the First Amendment to our Constitution. And if you don't believe me, believe our Supreme Court. And ya know what? As much as it pains me to agree, they may be right. In the case of United States vs Alvarez where a guy falsely claimed to be a retired Maring and winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the court decided 6 - 3 that it has to do with freedom of speech. But that also means that lying in political campaigns is perfectly legal and proper to do. Well okay, it's legal. Politicians have decided it's proper to do. So when you're finally good and fed up with the lies you keep hearing in attack ads and even from the mouths of the candidates themselves, you can feel safe in the knowledge that these folks are exercizing their unalienable rights to tell bald faced lies. Even hairy faced lies. I'm not just talking about the fib you told about how many drinks you had the other night when you were out with the boys, or for you women who were out with the gals and the fact that you went to a show by "Chip and Dale" and not to a sewing club meeting. And you guys need to fes up that those drinks were at the local strip club. But we're not talking about those kinds of fibs. Because in those cases you're facing a whole different set of rules. No, this ruling has to do with people, scumbags actually, who claim to be heros in order to reap some sort of rewards. Or politicians who claim they'll save you from their evil opponent. The law says they have the right to do that. It doesn't say that if you're found out, that you won't get your butt kicked, but you might be able to successfully sue over that. That is unless it goes before a jury of your peers.

I Love It When I'm Right.

If you've read many of my entries in this blog, you'll know that I'm not a big fan of China, and I'm not a real big fan of companies that do business with China. Well the reason is spelled out quite nicely in the Washington Post today. An article mentions that several companies gave away the store on attack helicopters or, after the fact, conspired to cover up the givaway. United Technologies and Hamilton Sundstrand tried to cover up the givaway by Pratt & Whitney Canada. This is one China didn't have to steal. Pratt Whitney gave it away in the hopes they would get a big contract to build commercial helicopters for China, hoping China wouldn't use the technology for the military. Oh, that makes sense. To teach them a lesson, they were fined $75 million. But then again their net sales were $58 billion, making it just over 1%. At that rate, they could consider it a cost of doing business. There may be some criminal charges to go along with the fine, but my problem with this whole thing is, why do we allow a company that wants to do business with an enemy like China, why do we allow them to have important information? Expecially the kinds of information we know China would love to get their hands on? Now I know companies like this claim they can keep information from different countries segregated. So how're they doing on that score? It looks like they're going to have to repeat first grade. If you ask me, they should get kicked out of school permanently. I'm just not sure we can afford to do business with the Pratt & Whitneys of the world. Well maybe with technology that's deeply flawed we can.

The Supreme Scalia

Well, it's time to man up. I have to say that over the last couple of days, the Supreme Court acted semi-properly. I say semi because there is still room for improvement. For instance in Arizona, they could have and should have stopped police from stopping people and arresting them if they "thought" they "might" be illegal. But in fairness the the Chief Justice, John Roberts broke with the conservative branch to uphold the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. What's still troubling is justice Antonin Scalia. There's a guy that's so partisan that he's willing to make the Supreme Court look like a nasty divorce. He's willing to be so partisan that he will stand up, with the court in session, and complain about the president and his decissions. That's not what the court was designed to do. The Supreme Court, Mr Scalia, is not an attack ad filming location. It would almost appear that justice Scalia is a bit out of sorts. Is he losing his grip on reality? Is he suffering from senility? He is a poster child for term limits for the Supreme Court. One term. Say twenty five years. No second term. Or maybe an age limit. How old is Scalia. Whatever it is, that should be the age you gotta quit. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I dislike him. I don't even know him. I just don't like his new-found style. I guess this would be a good time to institute a set of rules of conduct and ethics. He'd never pass any such thing.

Yep. It's The Supreme Court Again.

If you think I'm paranoid about the Supreme Court, here's an example of why I'm concerned about the court's biased actions. In a nutshell, it's Alito. Justice Samuel Alito is the ultra conservative justice who is in the lead to bust unions and elevate corporations to that of a class above human citizens. Here's just a bit of background. The Supreme Court has a set of rules it agreed to follow. It's been in place for a long time. Rule number 14 states that the court can only rule on the questions outlined in the petition or fairly included therein. In other words, the court can't wander around willy nilly outlawing this or that or approving the other. The only decisions they're allowed to decide are those that are brought to them through the channels of lower court rulings and challanges. But Alido seems to feel he's above such narrow guidelines. A union case was brought before the court. Even several liberal leaning justices agreed this particular rule must be struck down. But Alito went farther. He demanded that unions could not charge nonmembers for negotiations on wages, a longstanding right. The four other conservative justices went along with him. Now whether you agree with this arrangement or not, it was not part of the suite brought before the court. Alito was in violation of rule 14. Does anyone think he cares? Based on his leadership in this assault on the rules, if you go to court to sue your neighbor for chopping down your fence, the judge could decide that your boat parked next to your garage is not an acceptable color. The point of the having rules is so everyone plays by the same rules. It now appears anything goes if your party is in control. I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to be non-partisan?

Ahh. The Senate's Farm Plan.

The Senate, only marginally more likable than the House or Supreme Court to me, has passed a new and improved Farm Bill. I say improved all the while sarcasm is dripping from my brain. It does have a few good points, however. It eliminates the so-called Direct Payment Program that gave big agri-businesses funding no matter whether they did poorly or very well. Instead they replaced it with a very handsome crop insurance program that will do pretty much the same. On the other hand, they did manage to cut back on food stamps $4.5 billion over ten years, a welcome piece of trickery to help those in need. More sarcasm. They also managed to cut back on environmental protections to protect land potentially in danger of erosion, although somebody put part of that back in an amendment. Sarcasm continues. So the total bill comes to $969 billion over ten years, a $23 billion reduction from last year. Now if you think this is bad, just remember that the House of Representatives gets a shot at cutting more out of it, to make it more affordable. I wonder where they'll find the waste to cut out of that bill? Would you like to bet $10,000 that it isn't more likely to come out of food stamps than out of the insurance for giant agri-businesses? My guess is that somehow the House will figure out how to put the screws to small farmers and food stamp recipients but protect the big boys. I think that's eligible to be called more sarcasm. It's not that I think our Senators and Congressmen don't care about people. They do care. But they care about the folks who don't really need their help and not those who do.

Immigration Laws.

Well the Supreme Court struck down three of the four sections of the Arizona immigration law, in spite of what you may or did hear from the Arizona governor. But not to be too careful, they did allow states to hold anyone who a police office considers may be an illegal. What does that mean? Racial profiling. Now you'll certainly hear yelps of pain from those who plan to do just that. They'll claim that they would never do that. They'll claim that, all the while they're doing it. Of course, this opens up additional possibilities as well. Suppose your mother, lets say a fine redheaded Irish lady, gets pulled over for speeding. The officer admonishes her for exceeding the speed limit by, oh lets say, thirty miles an hour. That would be just about enough for that fine Irish lady to lose her temper and give the office an earful. Well, now that officer has an additional option. He can arrest her for possibly being in this country illegally. Now your mom can be found in the local lockup, until you can provide proof that she is a legal resident. If your mom is like mine was, she won't remember where those documents are. So by the time you rifle through all her files and boxes to find it, she will already have been deported. On the other hand, maybe you've always wanted an excuse to visit Ireland. Well, now's your chance. Just be advised. She may not be in the best of humor when you see her. If she gives you a piece of her mind, you can send a letter of thanks to the Supreme Court.

Who's The Biggest Insider Traders In The Country?

How well do you know the stock market? I'll bet you don't know it as well as your Congressman or Senators do. Rare indeed is the politician who leaves Washington poorer than when he got there. One of the reasons is that they're allowed to buy and sell stocks in companies who have legislation that they will vote on in committee and on the floor that will affect the company's bottom lines. See if company 'A' wants more leniency in regulations, as an example, and your Congressman sits on the committee that will decide on that issue, why, Mr Congressman can buy a bunch of stock if he thinks his vote will help the company make more profit. That or sell stock if his vote will hurt. It's what we call a stacked deck in the parlance of a gambler. Now, not long ago, Congress passed laws stopping administration officials from taking advantage of this type of insider trading. But somehow it just slipped their minds to stop themselves from this kind of stock transaction. See Congress called it insider information trading and barred it. But they don't consider it insider trading when it comes down to themselves. For themselves and their families, it's more a case of informed investing. Like any good and smart investor who researches a company before investing. Congress doesn't research a company. They research what companies they will be voting on. How come they can get away with this kind of stuff? They can get away with it because they voted to allow themselves to do it. Or rather they didn't vote on it at all thereby allowing them to continue the practice. It's all very legal. It's all on the up and up, so long as it's legal. And it's legal until Congress makes it illegal. Any guess on when that'll be?

What's Wrong With Us?

The question remains, do tax cuts equate to improved jobs pictures or higher earnings or debt reduction? Well, not according to IRS figures as well as other reports. If you take 2001as a base, because it was a recession year and the first year of the Bush tax cuts, and compare it with 2011, a decade later, you find there are fewer jobs, substantially lower income per capita and far higher debt. Of course we need to remember in the intervening years we've fought two wars on credit and we've gone through an expansion of shifting jobs overseas. Unfortunately it hasn't been just the low skill jobs that left. Many if not most jobs that left were higher skilled. What it all boils down to is that we've been trying the Trickle Down Theory off and on  for thirty to forty years. It hasn't worked. We've tried lower taxes and lower interest rates for a decade. They haven't worked. We need to try something different. It's time to start looking at a trickle up theory. Let's give some breaks to the poor and middle class for a change and let the rich pick up the tab. If the interest rates go up, it'll help savings. If taxes go up for the rich, maybe they'll finally understand what it's like to be forced to do without. If job creators ship jobs overseas, let's tax the products when they come back. Lets not make it so easy to ship those jobs out. If the job creators decide to move their families and wealth overseas, let's confiscate everything they left behind and confiscate anything they ever send back. I think we could develop a whole new generation of job creators right here, without those that left. When times are hard, like now, ya gotta get tough with them. And anyway, it's not the job creators so much as it is the politicians  that caused these problems. Maybe an alternative solution would be to ship the politicians overseas.

A Tax Nobody Has To Pay.

Wow! Now there's a really novel idea. Pay for a war with cash. Why, we haven't ever done anything like that for over 11 years and two wars. But here we are, with Senator Patrick Leahy making a suggestion that we pay for any military action we might take in the future. Nothing on the past 11 years. Like providing air support for Syria's freedom fighters. So if we decide to send fighter bombers and all the rest that goes with them over there, we gotta pay for it? Either that or send a bill to the folks we're supporting. With the expectation of having the bill get paid. If not, then we gotta pay for it. In cash! No more wars on credit? No more gold card? No more frequent flier miles for the war effort? How in the world would we pay for something as expensive as a war, or conflict or action? Taxes. Wantta keep us out of all wars? Make it automatic that taxes go up with no relief from it by congressional or presidential action. Can you imagine Grover Norquist allowing even a single engine Piper Cub to fly over a neighborhood argument? I mention him because without his express permission, nobody raises any taxes. But see, this should be acceptable to him because no taxes are actually being levied. Just a promise that if we don't behave, we'll be taxed. If he got worried about any conflict anywhere in the world, he might call for disbanding our Air Force. That would stop us from joining in on the fun of a war. And if things really got going hot and heavy somewhere, he might call for disbanding the Navy. Maybe even the Army and Marines. Just expand the Coast Guard. But no taxes. Yes, I can see definite advantages in a law like this. No more lost lives of young Americans. I think it would be worth a try. How about you?

Is The Answer The Truth?

Have ya ever listened to politician's answers to questions they would rather not answer. That's exactly right. They don't answer the question. It takes a real politician to talk for fifteen minutes without answering the question. Now if you were to ask me what the price of gas is today and I told you to go down three blocks, turn left, go two blocks and turn right, it's the second house on the left, you'd probably get the idea that I didn't want to give you a straight answer. Either that or I didn't understand the question. But we all know that politicians fully understand the question. We're just all surprised that they just don't lie about it. I mean, let's face it, they're more than willing to lie about their opponent. Or at least they're more than willing to have their SuperPac lie about the opponent. Why is it that real, honest, truthful, answers are so hard to come by. You'd think that a person who wants you to vote for him or her, would want to be square with you. If I wanted you to join my club, it just wouldn't be smart of me to tell you the club was exclusively for golfers. Especially if it was a church prayer circle. It wouldn't take long for you to get the idea that I might have misrepresented the club's goals. Just a tad, mind you, but misrepresented just the same. But why do politicians stumble over the truth? Do you suppose it's in their genes to lie? Or are they waiting for that SuperPac to pick up the ball and score one. What if it was the law that politicians had to tell the truth? What if they had to produce the proof of the truth before they could state it? Oh, I suppose we'd never find enough people to run for all the offices.

How To Understand Our Constitution.

Here's to the Constitution nobody believes in. Ya think I'm wrong? Well how come both the left and the right love to quote the Constitution and call upon the Constitution in order to prove and defend their competing ideologies. See if you read only those sections of the Constitution that agree with you're own ideas of how to run a country and ignore anything that disagrees with you, then you don't understand the concept. The founding fathers we so proudly hold up as being perfect, were actually closer to perfection than we'd like. By that I mean they were able to see the good in both sides of many issues. They decided to be fair to everyone. Not just to you're way of thinking, but to many ways of thinking. See, you're way of looking at an issue only represents about a third of the people and their way of thinking. In other words, you're in the minority. And in a fair and honest process, you lose. Or you would except the other two groups are about evenly divided. What you need to do is get one of the other groups to agree with you. Either that or you need to agree with one of the other groups. That or, perish the thought, compromise. See that's the beauty of our Constitution. It makes it easy to compromise to get things done. There is another way, that's to try to force a group to agree with you, but that's not allowed in our Constitution. So if you think the Constitution was written by someone exactly like you, you don't understand the Constitution. That puts you in an alien group of misfits.

Who's Keeping My Brother?

Hey! How's your neighbor doin? Got enough to eat lately, has he? Come to think of it, just how many neighbors do you have anyway? They tell me there are seven billion people on earth these days and that figure is growing by 77 million a year. So let me ask again, How's your neighbor doin? See, they claim that 850 million of your neighbors go to bed hungry. Every night. Of the year. Now if that ain't bad enough, another billion don't get sufficient nutrition. Some other problems they're facing are enough potable water to go around for drinking. Then there's the shortage of water for agriculture in large areas of the world. Of course that only means a shortage of food. Which accounts for the 850 million hungry people. And the one billion under-nourished too, come to think of it. Then again, in some parts of the world, we throw out food that's nearing an expiration date. Here's another thing to consider; by 2050, there'll be nine billion people on earth. Now, it's not that the earth can't provide for that many people, it's just that there aren't enough people on earth concerned enough to do what needs to be done to accomplish it. Ya see, it's that old game of "I've got mine, that's all I care about" attitude. Seriously, why should I care about the other guy. He means nothing to me, right? They claim that wars, in the not too distant future, will be fought over water and arable land. Land that can grow food. So while a population twice the size of America goes hungry every night, here in America, we can't even agree on what's good for our planet. Which is better for the people, clean water and air or more products and more pollution? You could argue that more products means more jobs. But then more pollution means more premature deaths. Maybe that's the hope. Ya gotta love em.

Hey! I Know That Gun!

Did you know there is a way to identify a firearm that's used in the commission of a crime? Did you know that the technology for it has been around since the 90s? Now the next question's a little trickier. Do you know who's against using this technology? Well yes, of course, the people who commit those crimes are against using that technology, but do you know who else? Gun makers are against it. Them and of course the NRA. Gun makers claim it would be very expensive to do what is necessary. Basically what happens is the guns would have micro engraving on the firing pin. A number code. A different one for each gun. Now it's such an expensive deal that the government has been stamping sequential numbers on paper money for decades, probably more than a century. That part of the technology is somewhat understood. Making it small enough is the newer technique. So now do you wonder why the NRA is against the idea? I mean I understand why the gun manufacturers don't like it. There are some costs involved and no manufacturer likes increased costs. But why the NRA? Well it's not so hard to understand if you stop to realize that the major portion of the NRA's income comes from gun manufacturers. So if Remington, a major gun manufacturer, says they don't like this idea, which they have said to the point of threatening New York of quiting the state if it passed such legislation, why then, if companies like Remington and others don't like it, then the NRA doesn't like it. Never mind that the NRA, National Rifle Association, is an organization which claims to be the supporter of sportsmen. It is in effect a lobbying arm of the firearms industry, not at all interested in the best interests of sportsmen, except as the two interests intersect. Hey, they publish a sportsman's magazine, isn't that enough? Of course there's lots of gun makers ads in it.

The Thing With Global Warming Is!

When it comes to global warming, there seems to be some folks who agree we humans are partly to blame, we're contributors. Nearly all climatologists and scientists are in this group. Then there's a part of Americans who agree global warming is taking place but don't believe humans have anything to do with it. Then there's the last group, who don't believe global warming exists at all. This last group mostly also believe the world is about 6000 years old and therefore there has never been ice ages or a land bridge between Alaska and Asia. All of this is fact. The thing is, for the first two groups, we have a problem brewing. Now throughout our history as a nation, in fact throughout humanity's history, we have always worked to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Until recently there was little humans could do to stop or reverse disasters. All we could do is fortify ourselves against it. Cold winters meant building warm homes. Flooding meant building on higher ground, and so on. But now we know that pollution at least exacerbates the problem. Well, guess what? We have the means to curtail most of the pollution we create. Hey good for us. Now we can cut it out and maybe save the world as we know it, right? In fact, by now we're well on our way to doing just that, right? Well actually, no. Now to be fair most of the countries in the world are working on it. But several of the largest countries aren't. And a few countries say that unless these biggest countries do it, they won't. So how come America won't? How come we're one of those biggest roadblocks? Well see, that third group? The group that doesn't believe in global warming at all? Well right now, they seem to hold the power in Washington. Even though they don't hold a majority anywhere. They've got everyone else buffaloed. Ya now, even kids know it makes sense to help stave off a bad thing if you have the ability to do so. Or at least try.

Campaigning 101.

There's an elementary school in Maryland that has some unusual rules for it's class elections. Unusual as in no promises you can't keep, no more than six posters, no give-a-ways like candy and such, you can't mention your opponent's name, no tee shirts with your name on them. You can't make statements that aren't true. Or you get kicked out of the race? You do get to give a speech over the schools P.A. system, but no buttons with your name on them. Do you notice any similarities between this school's campaigning policies and our national and state political systems? You don't? You don't suppose that's because there really aren't any, do you? I mean, hey, let's face it, what would our election campaign system be like if our politicians had to follow rule like this? Just what kind of campaign would we have, anyway? A goodie two shoes operation? Why, people might actually know what our candidates mean. There'd be no way to cheat and lie or you'd get kicked out of the campaign and your name taken off the ballet? That would seem un-American to me, how about you? Let me ask you, wouldn't you miss all those political ads if there was a limit on spending on campaigns? See, without all those campaign commercials, how would we know which lies favored our guy and which lies favored the other guy? It's the lies that make it all worth while. How would you know who to vote for, if it weren't for all the lies. No, all this truth telling may be okay for elementary age children, but for us, we well informed adults  aching for these insidious tidbits on the character flaws of our candidates, the lies are the foundation of our country's electoral system. It's a bedrock necessity. We lie about each other and we like it that way.

I'll Stimulate You, You Stimulate Me.

Remember that $787 billion Stimulus package from back in 2009? You know, the one that so many people claim was a colossal waste? Well, according to the Congressional Budget office, which is non-partisan and widely respected, the stimulus was a big success and added approximately  3.3 million jobs to the economy. And 80% of all economists agree. Only 4% of economists disagree. Now I'd say that's quite a margin. So if it was such a great fix-all, how come we still have unemployment of over 8%? Do you suppose our "Great Recession" was worse than everybody thought it was? I mean if it was just a bump in the road like we've experienced over the years every so often, that many jobs would have brought our unemployment below normal averages, right? Well, maybe our Great Recession was bigger than we thought. And maybe recessions this big don't go away quickly. Hey, maybe the Stimulus wasn't big enough after all, as many economists believe, though not all. Maybe it should have been bigger and lasted longer There's something else I've noticed. When enough people are discouraged, things almost always get worse. It's sort of like "you get what you ask for." Maybe we really do need a roads and bridges stimulus package to help bring our infrastructure up to grade and employ another million or so workers. It would increase the debt, but ya know the best way to reduce the debt? Cut waste and get more people back to work and paying taxes. Ya know what a bad way to cut debt is? Put more people on unemployment.

Talk About Government Waste.

Well the GSA, that is the General Services Administration, is back in the limelight. You remember it was the GSA that held the big Los Vegas party? Well now questionable bonuses and outlandish travel expenses have them back under scrutiny. After all, it is the taxpayers' money and Congress wants to know if they're soaking the, said taxpayers, again. Congress? The folks in Congress think people in government are spending too much money on themselves? When is Congress going to decide they're spending too much on themselves? Now, the GSA has Congress to poke into it's spending habits, to investigate and question their habits. Question is, who gets to poke into the individual spending habits of Congress? What about their travel expenses? What about all the other ways they figure out how to feather their nests? Earmarks are a whole other subject. I'm talking about junkets and prepping for positions in consulting and lobbying after they leave office. Now if a congressman leaves office or gets beat out of office, do they need to work, ever again? Maybe some do, but should they be allowed to have anything to do with government, ever again? Except maybe run for office again. Many of these folks treat Congress as though it were an apprenticeship for positions at Lobbying firms. If they want to get on the speaking circuit, that's fine, but let's not make it into a permanent gravy train. That's what their pension is for. And it's not an inconsequential pension. What with medical, dental, and who knows what else. That would be the one drawback for the public if we went to term limits. Can you imagine the tab for all those extra Congressman and Senators? If you want to talk about government waste, start with congress.

I Thought Everybody Paid School Taxes.

I was treated, today, in the local paper, with a letter to the editor that pointed out just how little people understand about economics and life in general. In this letter, the writer lamented about the high property taxes people have to pay. Why, some people have no children in  school, yet they must pay school taxes. It's so unfair. Then the writer lighted on another travesty of justice. Why not make renters pay school taxes, the writer wanted to know? Apparently it never entered the writers mind that renters do pay their share of school taxes, even if they don't have kids in school. Raise your hand if you think landlords don't calculate the property taxes into the rent they charge. But what about those folks who don't have kids and still have to pay school taxes? They pay school taxes to help pay for the schooling of the kids now. Back when they had kids, other folks without kids, helped to pay for your kids. What about those whose kids went to private schools? Why do their parents have to pay for public schools? Because educating everyone is the law and because it helps our entire economy. Because your children were privileged, doesn't excuse you, any more than renters are excused, from paying the school taxes. America needs to have all it's children educated. It was decided long ago that schools would be paid for by the communities they serve. If you want to change that, we could have the state or federal governments pay for the schools, but then your income taxes would go up. That and the state or federal governments would run the school instead of your local school board. There's always an easy answer  to every problem. It's just that the answer, generally, is not to your liking. And more often than not, isn't the solution to the problem anyway.

Why Doesn't He Pay Taxes?

When's the last time you heard somebody complain about the fact that nearly half of all Americans pay no taxes? Well it's a fact that nearly half of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes. It's a lie that they pay no taxes. They pay payroll taxes if the work,. they pay sales taxes, excise taxes on gas and electric and heating. But that's not what folks complain about. They complain that half of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. How come? Why is it that these folks don't pay any taxes? Ya know why? Because they don't earn enough to pay taxes. They don't earn enough to get out of poverty. So if you're mad about these folks not paying their fair share, you should be mad that they don't earn a living wage. They don't earn their fair share. How come? Because job creators earning millions per year don't pay many of their employees enough to live on, to put food on the table and pay taxes too. Now any multi-millionaire will tell you that if they paid their workers enough to qualify to pay taxes, then the job creators wouldn't be able to make multi-millions per year, or if they still did, then they couldn't compete. It comes down to a choice between the Job Fillers or the Job Creators. Since all these people still aren't paying taxes, you'd have to conclude that the Job Creators won the day. So if the Job Creators are unwilling to pay the Job Fillers a living wage, isn't that class warfare? I mean it seems to me that a Job Filler should be allowed the dignity to live their lives without wondering how they will pay for their next meal. And if that means that the Job Creators will only make nine tenths of a million per year, then so be it.

You Can Trust The FEC. To Get It Wrong.

You know what I think of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United. Now here's some examples of why I think it was the worst mistake the Court has ever made. Aside from the fact that Super PACs from the Republican Party alone, are spending more on attack ads in 2012 than both party's Pacs and both candidates did in 2008, they don't have to announce who gave them the money. And that doesn't even account for the Democrat Super PACs. I've also mentioned groups like the Chamber of Commerce  doing "back door" conversions to avoid additional rules that would require them to give up the names of donors of the nearly $100 million they want to spend on attack ads. The 'Center To Protect Patient Rights' operates out of a Post Office Box # 72465 and has given $55 million  in 2010 for attack ads. It's believed most of the money came from the Koch brothers. Big Oil magnets from the Midwest. But they spent the money in over a dozen states. Mostly not in the Midwest. Now of course we can count on the FEC to protect us from bad players, right? Absolutely not. A federal judge had to overrule the  FEC in at least one case when the FEC came out against disclosure of donor names. Hey, even the Supreme Court got that part right. Now the American Future Fund, another attack group, has asked the FEC if they can mention the "Administration" and would that mean they weren't targeting anyone in particular. If they say the Administration did this or that, they wouldn't actually be talking about Obama, right? As if anyone would be confused about who they were talking about. The FEC (Federal Election Board) hasn't ruled on that. If they say it's okay, I suppose Obama supporters could then properly say that the "Man From Bain" did this or that and they could rightfully claim they weren't necessarily talking about Romney. How dumb is this? How dumb is the FEC? I guess we'll have to wait and see.