Leadership Is What Counts.

       America needs the leadership of a strong person. Someone who is able to see clearly the needs of the people. At times it is necessary for such a leader to be able to change long held perceptions as he finds reasons to do so.
       Former Governor Romney has shown his ability and willingness to make those changes of mind on most important issues facing Americans today. Unfortunately, we also need a leader who is able to perceive the answers we need in a timely fashion. In emergency situations, there isn't time to take six months or so to consider a change of heart.
       We need someone who can make those swift decisions when they're needed. Most often, in foreign policy as well as a laundry list of domestic concerns, we need those correct answers now. Six months from now might very well be too late. As leader you can't keep changing you stance every time you face a different demographic.
       True leaders find the right answer and stick with it. Popular or not. What's important isn't how many big deals you made as a CEO, it's how well do you handle the big problems that crop up suddenly and demand swift action. Those actions must be the right ones. The first time.
       President Barrack Obama has shown the ability to make the right decisions in a timely fashion, without great fanfare, but calmly and with laser focus.   Please do take the time to vote next Tuesday. Please give these points due consideration as you cast your ballot.
       Then party. Show yourself a good time. You deserve it. You exercised your rights.

Now It's The 95% v 5%.

       Honest, this is no lie. There is a bill in the Pennsylvania legislature that states any company with over 250 employees can keep 95% of all the withheld income taxes they collect. So if you work for one of these companies, when they deduct, from your pay, for your income taxes to the state, the company gets to keep all of it. Well all but five cents on the dollar.
       The five cents goes to the state, the 95 cents the company can keep. If this bill passes and becomes law, how long do you think it will take for smaller companies to demand the same special treatment? And what do you suppose these company's execs will decide to do with this money? Does anybody think they'll give it back to the employees as a year end bonus? How about year end bonuses for the execs?
       I'm sure that somebody woke up in the middle of the night, having wet the bed, and said "I just had a brainstorm", then fell back asleep. However this came to pass, the mental giants of the Pennsylvania legislature, or at least the majority leadership felt this was worthy of consideration.
       But here's the problem. If the state gets 95% less in taxes, where will it make up the difference? Increase the sales tax by 95%, or cut 95% of the state budget for education, roads, state employee benefits, police and medical assistance? You can bet it won't come from the legislator's income and perks or gas drillers, that much you can count on.
       Ya know what's scary about this bill? The scary part is that you can laugh at the idea at the same time our legislators are taking it seriously. And if they can take it seriously, then why cant or why won't other state legislature also consider it. Hey, I'll bet there are those in Washington D. C. who are keeping a close eye on it with thoughts of taking this law national.
       It's unlikely that any corporate leaders will try to discourage such thoughts. If you ask me, and I realize that no legislator would ask me, I'd say these folks are certifiable.

Back To The Court.

       I still don't understand the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case. They said that allowing corporations, unions and millionaires to spend unlimited amounts in elections won't affect elections or cause any unfair influence, real or imagined, so long as legislators require openness. Legislators? Require openness? Let me see. What are the chances that politicians will be willing to out their donor lists?
       If a politician is running for office and a donor says "I'll give you ten million, but I don't want anyone to know", what politician would you suggest would refuse such an offer? Oh yeah? Well what if that donor said "then sorry, I'll just have to give it to your opponent." What then? Then take the example of a donor who says it's okay to let people know who I am, but when you get elected... If you get elected and that donor shows up at your celebration party, who thinks he's not gonna have a sheet of paper with his wish list on it?
       Let me put it another way. Who thinks that any donor giving millions to a campaign isn't going to expect some consideration? Doesn't that sound like the Supreme Court was just ever so slightly naive? But Thomas Edsell, in an editorial in the New York Times today, suggests that another problem created by that decision is that the political parties will cede influence to individuals. Unwillingly, but cede never-the-less .
       Now I'm no fan of political parties, but I'd be even less of a fan of billionaires selecting candidates for high office. If you want to talk about abuse of power and influence peddling, just try that idea for a few election cycles. They already have supported the most radical candidates of this years crop. How did you think former Senator Rick Santorum and former speaker Newt Gingrich managed to compete? Just four billionaires very nearly upset the primary season this year, Shelden Adelson, Harold Simmons, Foster Friess and William Dore, nearly blew up the election this year.If these four were to put their heads together, it's fairly certain they could own an election. Especially if you threw in the Koch brothers.
       Now you may feel that the person they selected would be fine with you, but what does that do to democracy? And what if the next time around, you didn't like their candidate? What then?

Inaccurate Predictions Are Illegal.

       Whatever you do, don't let any state legislatures, anywhere in the country, hear about the latest court ruling in Italy. It seems a judge there has found seven scientists guilty of not knowing what would happen in the future. Before the April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila in central Italy, in which 309 people died, theses scientists had predicted, based on sound science, that there would be no quake. So now they're guilty of manslaughter.
       Can you imagine a state like Florida and all the others that have stand your ground laws, hearing about this? It might turn out to be a case of standing your ground and the stander dies. And then the one who didn't predict it gets a prison sentence. In Italy, scientists are already quitting their jobs with the government over this ruling.  Here in America I can see police getting in trouble every day. By not predicting the local bank would get robbed today, the cops get a ten year stretch in the local state prison. Or how about not predicting that someone would die in a shootout with a dangerous criminal? The criminal is dead, but the cops get life.
       The possibilities for change are limitless. I'll bet that thoughtful state legislatures across the country could find ways to get nearly anyone. What's that you say, you were in a fender-bender? Don't you think you should have known it would have happened? Even if you were in the store at the time? You should have known not to park in that preferred slot at the far end of the parking lot. Doctor you predicted my husband might live as long as two more days but he just died. You are guilty of manslaughter. My lawyer assured me I could win this case against an intruder even though I invited him in and then shot him in the back, with witnesses. So my lawyer will be my cellmate. Well, okay, maybe this one is fair.
       The point to all this is that our legislators, at least on the state level, are all too willing to think up stupid things and then enact them into law. Come to think of it so is our Congress. But don't quote me on this. It is not a prediction.

Voter Fraud? What Voter Fraud?

       Republican elected state legislatures around the country have been enacting Voter ID laws to stem the growth of voter fraud. But when put to the question, nobody has been able to show more than one or two cases of actual voter fraud in history. In fact, in Pennsylvania, the leader of that state's legislature stated the purpose was to allow Romney to win the election. Now comes news of a Republican related firm specializing in voter registration, holding contracts with more than a dozen state Republican parties and the national Republican committee. The news is not good news for the Republican party.
       Strategic Allied Consulting owned by Nathan Sproul, stands accused by a number of states of registering dead people and falsifying voter registrations plus destroying and or discarding voter registrations, among other charges. Mr Sproul is a long time activist in the Party and is former head of the Arizona Republican party.
       It would appear that the only fraud taking place in America, pertaining to voting, has to do with one company attempting to defraud states of fair elections. By the way, that also means that the company is attempting to defrauding the American people of a fair election.
       Has anyone heard where any state has begun to pass any laws about such practices? It looks like a number of states intend to be very strict about stopping a non-existent form of voter fraud, but had hired a company to approach the fraud issue from a different perspective.
       Now, I'm quite sure that the states in question didn't hire Mr. Sproul for the express purpose of fixing any elections, but it does seem strange that those states worry about a non-issue more than they do about real live crime. To be fair, Florida and Virginia have charges pending while Colorado and Nevada are investigating allegations of wrong doing.
       So a word to the wise poll workers; if Abe Lincoln or George Washington show up at your polling place, you might want to check their registration carefully. And if Benedict Arnold shows up or Charles Manson, you might want to make a 911 call.

Pro Life Or Pro Rape?

       This election year has brought us what can only be described as some rather strange information from some even stranger individuals. What's worse is many of these strange individuals are running for Congress. I could say that one is running for President. I say strange for him because he seems to be for or against whatever anyone wants at any given moment. Another is a gambling tycoon with too much money for his own good.
       But the really strange people have chosen to run for Congress. A couple are in the House and running for the Senate. There are five individuals who I would classify as completely without mental capacity. One talks about legitimate rape victims being able to magically stop pregnancies. Obviously illegitimate rape victims do not have this power.
       But he is not alone in being pro life to the point of being willing to put everything on the line to stand up and, in their dazed condition, explain that either women who get raped are easy to rape, or that God wanted it that way.
       To these men we can attribute the newest demographic within the borders of America. It's a demographic that these men have recognized and now place their hopes of election to high office with. Yes folks, this is a demographic that Democratic and most Republican candidates have missed entirely. How else to explain the lack of attention to this portion of the electorate?
       Now I know the suspense to know what this demographic truly is must be mounting. At this point, please take two pencils, one in each hand, and give me a drum roll. Ladies and gentlemen, the name of this newly recognized demographic is PRPL or Pro Rape/Pro lifers. I can foresee elections of the future when candidates will show xxx rated films to attract members of this demographic. So let's have three cheers for these pioneer candidates.
     

Capital Gains.

       Ya know what rich folks biggest worry is? Its that somebody will come along and figure out that capital gains should be taxed the same as labor income. Now lots of folks, some who aren't even 1% ers have a little capital gains income, but the really wealthy have lots or even most or all of their income as capital gains.
So the argument they use against higher taxes on themselves is that this is money they already paid taxes on.                           How dumb. And to think we all buy that argument.
       But see, it isn't the money they already paid taxes on that should now be taxed. Its the income from that money. Look, if I dig a ditch and get paid to do it, I pay taxes on that income. But I can't then say that since I paid taxes on that work once, I should never have to pay taxes on any income from my work again. You pay taxes on the income from your work every time you work. And if your money does the work for you instead of your back or your brain, then you should pay the same tax on the money income as the labor income.
       I wish I knew who it was that decided that their money is more important than my back. Since when is labor less valuable than money? Just wait till your toilet doesn't work. Then we'll see which is more valuable. Or how about when you get hungry and the farmer says, "sorry, but my produce is no longer available because my back is sore"? Then we'll see which is more valuable, your money or his back pain.
       Just imagine if the situation was reversed. If income from investments were taxed higher than income from work, don't you think there'd be a great uproar by the wealthy? Rich folk get a lot of perks that just aren't available to most of the rest of us except for special occasions like vacation trips or the like. But this lower tax rate is one time, and one perk, the wealthy just don't deserve.  

What's The Deal With Gas?

       Has anybody wondered what the heck is going on with natural gas drilling? Here's what I think, and it has the advantage of being true. But first a little history. Here in Pennsylvania, when they first started signing up leases, the offers were for around $27.50 per acre and folks were told they better sign up quick or there'd be no offers at all. Then things dried up for a while.
       Then came the offers of $2,700 per acre signing bonuses and if they dried up, they were never coming back. Then they dried up for a while and then offers came for up to $5,750 per acre. Then they dried up again for a while. Now I don't think they'll come back a whole lot higher than that $5,750 per acre, but anything is possible, I guess.
       The reason things keep drying up is for several important developments. One is that companies run out of funding temporarily and have to get additional investors. Another reason is that they wind up with much more land than they can develop quickly or add pipelines to get the gas out. But the biggest reason is that gas prices fluctuate.
       See, if the price of gas drops, it becomes less inviting to invest in gas exploration. On the other hand, if the price goes up, there's more interest in investing in leasing. Same is true for drilling. But once the well is drilled and the gas is being piped out, then it flows no matter what the price. Then the trick is to find new customers to buy it.
       That's when coal fired generation plants will find it a better alternative than trying to make clean coal. That's because clean coal is an oxymoron. Coal is dirty, is dirty, is dirty. Gas is a pollutant too, but nothing like coal. So natural gas is a real blessing and for many, a real boon.
       But for many others, natural gas is a real big headache. That's because it brings problems. Problems like polluted water wells, roads and highways ruined because of rough hard traffic and too much of that. And drillers who are none too careful with their workmanship. Not all, mind you, but a few bad apples, oh you know.

Ever Hear Of Job-Laundering?

       We all know that money-laundering is against the law, as it should be. But what about job-laundering? Now you may not have heard of the term job-laundering, but its where a company or individual takes a company that's viable as is, and sends those jobs offshore. His company makes more profit because labor is cheaper in places like China or Bangladesh. Enough so to even offset shipping.
       But then, he doesn't pay taxes on those profits because the company is making those profits in another country and, presumably, paying taxes there. Or, he keeps those profits in an offshore account so he doesn't pay taxes on it. Sometimes, even if he's supposed to.
       Then you have companies who begin to specialize in helping other companies to do the same thing. Now you can call it anything you want, but it's job-laundering. Some people think unemployment is all about the Great Recession, but most of the problem is that jobs have left and gone overseas or have just become obsolete through mechanization or robotics.
       But when somebody claims they can get those jobs back, in most cases that just can't happen. Even if a company should decide to return to America, it's most likely because they see ways to do the job with fewer jobs. But here's the problem with job-laundering and promising to bring jobs back; when you launder those jobs, chances are they're never coming back and when you promise to magically bring the jobs back, you cause people to think it can be done with no effort on their part. The unfortunate thing is that jobs can come back, but our workers are going to have to be better educated to do those jobs and that's gonna take more effort, especially for older workers and more educational years for young people. K-12 just doesn't cut it any more and this country needs, at least K-14. Assuming we'd like to continue to be a world leader.

Making Sense Makes Sense

       I've been reading about income disparities. Pretty exciting, huh? Yep, and the thing is that the greater the growth of disparity in a country, the slower the growth in the economy. So in other words, as the rich get richer and the rest get poorer, there's less business. In other words, if most of the people become too poor to buy the nice products companies make, the less money the companies make. In other words, the less business a company gets, the more employees they have to fire. In other words, the more unemployed who can't afford to buy the products the companies make, and so on. It really does make sense.
       So when you hear somebody suggest that the rich (job creators) need lower taxes so they have money to invest, you have to wonder, invest in what? Maybe another yacht? The next thing you hear is "class warfare". But that's not what I'm looking to do. I like the class of people I hang around with. I'll bet you do too.
       Actually what I'm suggesting is first lets put the most money where it'll do the most good. In the pockets of the people who will spend it on those nice products companies make. That is to say, not the rich, but the rest. As soon as I say that, I hear "Class Warfare" again, but that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if more people can afford to buy the products the companies make, then the rich get richer and the rest do better too. Now that makes sense, doesn't it?
       Here's another thing to think about, if something sounds like it makes sense, it usually does make sense, but if something doesn't make sense, it usually doesn't make sense. Common sense tells me giving to the rich and taking from the poor just doesn't make sense, but giving to the poor so everybody can do better, works for me. How about you?

Signs Of The Future.

       Our system of education is under attack. No I don't mean armed teaching terrorists have descended on our schools. What I do mean is there is a concerted push to take funds away from public schools and provide private schools with more funding. What will this accomplish? I can tell you it will increase value of a private school education. Those students that are financially able to attend better funded private schools will undoubtedly get more attention and receive a better education.
       But what about public education? Well, schools who are determined to be failing will receive less funding because of vouchers that take students and cash out of the system for them. As a result they can only sink lower. Better performing public schools will, never the less, continue to be funded lower and will eventually sink to a lower level.
       The idea that teachers should be graded by government is an insult to the very people we entrust our future to. We need to have the brightest and best people we can find to replace teachers who will be retiring.
       If you have a company, and you want the best and smartest employees, do you tell them they'll undergo evaluations on a continual basis or do you tell them you want them to do their best work? In other words, do you say we don't trust you or do we say, we know you can do it so go to it? Again, if you have a company and you want your leaders to be the best you can get, do you pay them a low wage and treat them like cheap laborers or do you pay them a high wage and treat them special?
       If we want our young people to get a better education, wouldn't it make sense to get the best teachers we can find, create the best educational environment we can, treat those teachers the best we can, give them the best tools for teaching we can and pay them like they were the best? It might not even be a bad idea to show them the respect you would give any successful person in the field they represent.
       Yes, we need ways to remove poor teachers, and yes there are financial constraints, but if this country wants to continue to be a leader, the leader in the world, we need to find ways to meet the needs and show the respect to the teachers that will lead the way to that future.
       Governments, federal, state or local can't lead us there, but teachers can. All that governments can do is provide the tools for the teachers The big question is, will we demand our governments do that?

A Fairy Tale You Can Believe.

Once upon a time there was a Federal Reserve that decided to help the unfortunate people who didn't own a home. So they decided to spend $40 billion a month on lowering interest rates on Mortgages. But, Once upon a time there were greedy bankers who thanked the fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, for the extra $40 billion but decided they liked the $40 billion more in profits then they did as $40 billion lower interest rates. And after all, the Fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, couldn't make the bankers reduce the interest rates. Whatever could the Fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, do? The only thing they could do was to go to Uncle Congress and ask Uncle Congress to pass some sort of legislation to force the big bad bankers to use that $40 billion to lower interest rates. Now Uncle Congress could do that. Uncle Congress could write a law that requires the big bad bankers to play fair. There's only one problem with that solution. Too many Uncle Congresses are in the realm of the big bad bankers and secretly do whatever the big bad bankers tell them, to do. But even more important than that, they are embroiled in an election run-up. And what with all the extra money being spent on ads by all the wealthy big bad Super PACs, nobody can hear our fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, right now. So the way this happy ending comes down is the Fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, will continue to put $40 billion into the hands of the big bad bankers, who will continue to put the $40 billion in their pockets, while the Uncle Congress continues to be conveniently oblivious to what's happening. Meanwhile everyone lived happily, if poorer, ever after. Except for the big bad bankers and uncle Congress, who have gone to their winter place in the Bahamas.

When Is It Proper To Lie?

       Ya know what the biggest problem with our political elective process is? Well, while there are a lot of problems with the process including everything from unchecked funding to political parties, the really big, in fact the biggest, problem is the primary election process. See, in a primary, you are allowed to vote only for the candidates within your own party, except in a very few states that allow open primaries. What this means, and everyone agrees, is that you have to "play to the passions of the base."
       Then and only after the primaries, can a candidate turn himself to the mood of the general electorate, you and me. In other words, if whether you believe a word you say or not, in the primaries you have to say what the more extreme of your party wants to hear. Then in the general election you have to gear your statements to what the wider public wants to hear. What this process does, is to force politicians to become liars. Although that's not been proven to be a difficult task for most. That is unless you are truly an honest man, in which case, your statements will not change.
       The problem with that is if you are honest, it's unlikely you can get the nomination, or if nominated, you would have no chance of getting elected. It's not always been that way. But of late, we've become a country of extremes. And by that I don't mean the weather. Although we have been experiencing severe extremes in the weather too. But there's no research that suggests the two are connected. So what we have is a scenario in which you're likely to get a liar for a president unless he's already served four years and can't lie himself out of what he's done.
       Wouldn't it make sense to have open primaries in all states and have the top two vote getters face off in the general election? That way all candidates would be more likely to run on an ideology they actually believe in. Because, the thing is that, when you lie you have to keep track of what you said yesterday. And then be prepared to defend that lie.

CyberSecurity Is For Sissies.

What do you know about cyber attacks? Me either. I guess the simplistic answer is that it would be like getting a bug in your computer that causes it to crash. Well if what I understand is true, that's pretty much what we're talking about. See, everything is run by computers any more. From our electric grid, to communications, to industry, water companies, banking, police forces and everything in between, they're all run in some way by computers and they're all tied together through the internet. So even if you don't have a computer, it would still affect you. Just imagine sitting down to watch your favorite reality show some night and suddenly the TV goes blank. So you go to the phone to call the cable company, but the phone is dead. Next you can't find your way back to the recliner because the lights went off. You feel your way to the kitchen for the flashlight and decide to pop some popcorn on the gas stove, but the pressure is gone so the burner won't stay lit. Soon it starts to get cold in the house because it's winter and the temperature is down to zero. You decide to get in your car and drive to the police station, but the garage door opener won't work. After you get that figured out, you go to the police station where the Sargent on duty tells you he has no information of any problems because his communications are out. While you're out, you decide to run to the store for some bread and milk, but the store is in complete darkness because the computer that tells the emergency lighting to turn on has crashed. The second store you go to is on fire and the sprinkler system doesn't turn on because there's no water pressure.  You notice you're nearly out of gas so you run down to the station for a fillup, but guess what? That's right, the pumps don't work. By the time you get home, there's frost on the kitchen table. We've been attacked through cyberspace. How could all this be happening? Because Congress has been unwilling to act on a CyberSecurity bill. Why? Because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is against it. Why? You wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Just Look At The Map.

       Ya know what the greatest shame of the Citizen's United Supreme Court's ruling is? It's not that so many millions of dollars are spent on falsehoods in ads, although it's certainly true that such is the case. But then lies aren't new in political campaigns. It's not even that ultra-wealthy individuals and major corporations are trying to buy elections, although they certainly are. It's not even that our judicial system is becoming tainted by this secret money although by all accounts it is. All of these things are true and it's unfortunate that our Supreme Court Justices couldn't see them coming or, let's hope, it wasn't an intended consequence.
       What it means, what the great shame of that infamous decision is, is that we the people have lost control of our electoral process and that our elected chambers have made a near irreversible change from deliberative bodies bent on meeting the needs of our population as they are charged to do by our Constitution and have become the tools and instruments of moneyed interests. In it's attempt to provide the rights of free speech to everyone, the court has effectively eliminated the right of free speech to all but those moneyed interests.
       The decision is at least partially to blame for the vitriol in our governing process. In the drive to garner the majority of the mega-funding from these moneyed interests, both parties have learned to do or say anything to get the cash. The promise of anonymous giving, something the average citizen is unable to take advantage of if we wanted to, allows donors to give extremely large donations without being held accountable for those gifts.
       Carried to it's obvious conclusion, the United States will become no better than the feudal systems of Europe our founding fathers escaped from. Our founding fathers intentionally drafted what they thought would be terms that would foil attempts to return to those systems of governing.
       For some, there's no reason to fear such a possibility. The wealthy need not fear. But for the vast majority, there is. You see, big money doesn't have to convince the whole population. It only has to convince a very small portion of that population to blend with it's base that will always vote the party. And unfortunately it's true that, heard often enough, a lie can become a truth to those who don't pay attention.
     
     
     

The Dreaded Year, 2012

       Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, men and women of all walks of life, Mr and Mrs America and all the ships at sea. In Snowbeard's continuing coverage of important events, comes news of a new title for this year, 2012. Of all the events and situations our country could become known for this year, such as; the killing of Osama BinLaden and most of the rest of the leadership of AlQaida, an important and vicious election year, a near comical primary season, perhaps the warmest year on record, certainly the warmest summer, the most wildfires, the greatest debt and deficit, a continuing worldwide recession, or the Arab Spring.
       None of these measure up to the year of the great American stinkbug invasion. Yes folks, this plague of 'BO' (bug odor) has infested all parts of the country. But Ground Zero seems to be the Mid Atlantic states. Which, not unsurprisingly, includes Washington D. C. Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, past, present and future along with all members of the Supreme court have been frantically searching for the solution to this dreaded situation.
       This reporter has it from unnamed sources unwilling to go on record, as stating that nothing is 'off the table' in the drive to defeat this sinister invader. The Supreme Court has decided to take the case in an attempt to clasify these stinkbugs as illegal aliens. The Pentagon has offered to send out drone aircraft against them, China has offered to export a parasitic wasp that is a natural enemy of the stinkbug, but because China is home to the only known colony of these wasps, the price is staggering. One national candidate has suggested that if we let them know how much we dislike their odor, perhaps the stinkbugs will self deport themselves. Another candidate for state wide office claims that they are not legitimate stinkbugs and therefore cannot become pregnant. He claims this fact will doom these insects to extinction.
       Congress has suggested we should defund them, further shrinking it's approval rating. In a late breaking development, the President has decided to take up the cause of the stinkbug problem by raising taxes on them, a move Congress is opposed to. The Treasury Secretary has pointed out that our government can support it's citizens or it's stinkbugs, but it cannot support both. The IRS has suggested listing them as deadbeat bugs.
       More on this developing story at eleven. This is Snowbeard Speaking, and now back to you, Rush.

FRAUD. A Little Goes A Long Way.

       DID YOU KNOW. Did you know there is a website for anyone who believes someone is committing fraud against the U.S. Government? There's even situations in which such a person could receive a reward of a percentage of the amount collected if the government proves that fraud. You can also remain anonymous. In other words, you can tattle, on the QT and get paid to do it. That's fair.
       I'm tempted to apply. I'd like to stop some of the fraud going on in this country. I'd like to remain anonymous. I could always use a little extra cash. But then, who couldn't? I should really look up that website and save it until I can build my case against the perpetrators. On the other hand, I think they've built my case for me. So why don't I just go ahead and report them.
       Dear sirs; I would like to take this opportunity to report what I believe to be some of the most flagrant and egregious cases of fraud this country has seen in the last two years. It includes 535 individuals working in concert with one another and in full complicity with each other. I speak of the 112th Congress and the Senate or more specifically, all the members of the 112th Congress and the Senate.
       I think you will agree, if not now, then as soon as you begin to delve into the work, or lack thereof, the inability or unwillingness to compromise or even discuss compromise, the overwhelming desire to feed pork to constituents, the outright graft, unlawfulness, waste and fraud that goes on in and out of Washington. Couple that with the inability to understand science, the willingness to destroy education, and the attempts to undermine the constitution by members of both parties is criminal.
       If you are unable to do anything about those 535 people, then at least consider the two parties. you might also consider Grover Norquist and both candidates for President and Vice President too.
       Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Please send my check to anonymous, care of P.O. Box @#%&*!. Thank you.

Just How Many Jobs Is That?

       I'm sorry, but both President Obama and Governor Romney have missed the point. And the media isn't making an issue of it either. But the thing is, creating 12 million jobs won't fix the economy by itself. They just keep harping on creating jobs and the jobless rates and the number of unemployed. And I realize that if you're one of those unemployed, it is very important information. But it's not the answer to the problem they keep talking about.
       Look. If you created 12 million new jobs tomorrow, and each and every new job paid $80,000 per year. At 20% tax rate, that would come to $192 billion increased revenue. But the annual deficit is $1.3 trillion. It's $1.6 trillion if you factor in the increase to the defense budget Mr Romney wants. So after you deduct the $192 billion, it leaves $1.405 trillion in deficit. And then if you don't raise any taxes and don't cut defense, where do you think it's gonna come from? By the way, to eliminate the deficit, you'd have to create 81 million new jobs. And the current workforce in the U.S. is 154 million jobs.
       I can tell you this much. Cutting out Big Bird ain't gonna fix the problem. PBS gets billions, but it's in the single digits. That's not even a light snack for the budget. So what's left? Entitlements. That's what's left. And if you think eliminating food stamps will do it, you're really kidding yourself. Food Stamps are another (less than) light snack.
       Maybe if you completely eliminated Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid you'd get close. But you still wouldn't be there. Maybe ending mortgage interest deductions and all safety-net programs would do the job. That means your 92 year old grandmother will have to go out and get a job. Maybe one of those $80,000 a year jobs the candidates are promising.
       Now I'm not going to pretend I have the answers. I don't, but I'm not getting paid to have the answers. I'm not applying for the job either. But it's past time for somebody to step up to the plate and tell the truth. Just a simple "here's a real honest to goodness plan" would do nicely.
     

Dumb Is As Dumb Does.

            Wanna know how screwed up our government is? Well in two different articles this morning, one in the Washington Post and the other in the New York Times, they point to two different acts of stupidity. I don't know any other way to put it. In the first, Vivek Wadhwa tells about the immigration's so called law. A young man studying for his masters here, came up with a great new idea. He applied for a visa, which the government was happy to extend to him, but under the rules of the visa he could not work for a company he starts. So here he is, with a plan to hire, perhaps hundreds of Americans, but can't do it here in America.
           The second story, by James Risen, is about Counter terrorism Offices around the country that in two years did not come up with any, any, usable intelligence. Oh, they made reports. They made 610 reports and countless draft reports. These "Fusion Centers" were sending in reports of information they pulled from publicly reported information. So, I guess if you read it the paper, it'll get reported. Then there is the question of some of the $1.4 billion that was allocated for some Fusion Centers that don't even exist.
           So what does all this tell you? Either somebody is asleep at the wheel or somebody got their license at Walmart. Why would we not allow a smart young man with an idea for a new company with the potential to hire lots of Americans, to "come on in and do your thing?" Why wouldn't we? And why would we spend a billion dollars on offices that, it looks like, do more harm than good? How come? I'll bet I know why. I'll bet it has something to do with Washington. I'm telling ya, there must be something in the water. It must be the Iranians. They must be putting stupid gas in the water. It reacts on 546 people in Washington. Coincidentally  that's how many Senators, Representatives, the President and Vice President and Supreme Court Justices we have. Funny part of it is, they've been doing it for decades.

Voter ID Law And Politics.

Well, a Pennsylvania judge put a hold on the state's voter ID law. That's because it's a particularly strict law and there isn't sufficient time left to enforce the law and still get everyone who is entitled to vote the ID they would have needed to do so. The governor's and majority leadership's in the state legislature response must be "Oh darn". That's because they were hoping they could indeed disenfranchise a lot of Obama supporters. How else to explain the Majority leader's statement on film that "Voter ID law, DONE, so Gov. Romney can win Pennsylvania." He said it, no dispute there.Now being partisan isn't a bad thing. Even if you're the leader of a state legislature. That is unless you're using that position to eliminate likely voters of the competition. When you pass a law that has no pressing purpose, you're wasting the peoples time. See, the people elect the legislators to do a job. Or a number of jobs. The point of those jobs is to protect and support the lives of all the people. Nobody gets elected to serve the needs of just some of the people. This news may come as a shock to many legislators, both in the states and in the federal government. Governors and the President come under this rule also. In fact if you're elected by the public, in any political subdivision, municipality, state or federal to any position, you are elected to serve everyone in that subdivision. Politicians have forgotten that point. Mostly these folks think they're elected to serve one party or one ideology. Not so. In fact, if that were so, this country would have fallen apart long ago. The thing is, to accomplish what it was you were elected to do, you're going to have to compromise some of the time. That means everybody. Nobody should have the right to go through a term of office without compromising. That should be a law. Anyway, back in Pennsylvania, the best advise I could give the Governor and legislative leaders is to spend more time on enforcing the laws it already has. And maybe look for where there are actual loopholes not covered by law. This photo ID law ain't one of them.

The Debt Problem Solved.

Would you vote for me? How about if I said we need to raise taxes on millionaires? What if I said we need to raise taxes on everyone else too? What if I said we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security to 70 and remove the cap on SS taxes for higher income earners? How about changing payments to hospitals and doctors based on results rather than on each procedure? Okay then, how about if I said we will eliminate all entitlements and subsidies to any company or individual who earns a profit of three times the entitlement or subsidy or has other income sources that provide that ratio, would you still vote for me? Here's one: What if I said we would cut the defense budget by eliminating any and all projects, facilities or weapons systems the military says it doesn't need or want? Because if we did all these things, the country wouldn't go bankrupt until about 2040. If we don't, then the next president would not serve out his term before the country went belly up. Now, Do you think the candidates both know this? You betcha. Will they ever admit it? Not until it's too late. What about the next congress? Do you think they know this? I'm not sure they do. What would they do if they did? Blame the other party. After blaming each other how would they solve the problem? They wouldn't until it's too late. Are you saying that these men and women would not immediately try to save the country? Look at recent history for that answer. They played chicken until it cost the U.S. it's most favored bond rating. They're about to do the same thing with the so called fiscal cliff. But aren't I claiming to do the same as the fiscal cliff? Yep. But more slowly, one at a time, not all at once. So what are my chances of getting elected? Oh, well then what are my chances of getting any votes? Slim. Look, it's like two people standing and looking at a penny on the floor. One calls it heads, the other calls it tails. But neither one will get down on his knee to take a close look.Eventually somebody will come along and claim that penny for himself and the two will be left holding the empty bag.