The National Debt And Deficit Solved.

       Did you know that our national debt is half owned by foreign countries? Which means that about half is owned by American investors. Which means we owe our own people half of the money we owe. But America is owned by Americans. That means we owe ourselves half of our debt. If we owe ourselves that money, then we really don't owe it. So we can easily cut our debt in half and it wouldn't cost us a dime to do it. That leaves just two questions. First question is, how do we eliminate that half of the debt? And second is how do we eliminate the other half?
       One question at a time. If we owe ourselves half the debt, we can cancel out that portion of the debt by simply paying off that portion of the debt.  Now you may ask how we could afford to pay off that much money all at once? That's another question, but I'll answer it anyway. If we raise taxes on debt payoffs of investments by the amount we paid out, the tax income would cancel out the debt payout.
       The second question is a bit harder to answer. And the answer is a little harder to swallow. Unlike Greece and the other members of the European Union, we use our own money. We also print our own money when the need arises, such as when paper money gets worn out and needs to be replaced. We could just as easily print enough money to pay off our foreign debt.
       What that would mean is that our money would be worth less. That would have consequences both good and bad. Foreign made products would become more expensive, but American goods would become cheaper in other countries. That's true unless other countries did the same thing in retaliation. But if they retaliated, then things could get back to normal. Not that normal is good.
       At any rate the debt would be eliminated. Then to compensate the investors we paid off, for any inconvenience, we could afford to give them a tax cut. That's because of all the money we would be saving in interest payments on our debt. Ya see? Answers are simple, if you don't mind the answers.

A Tale Of The Whining in The Wind.

       Listen! Listen close. Do ya hear it? Can you hear all that whining? It's on the wind. It's in the country and in the cities. All that whining is about a Financial Transaction Tax levied by eleven countries in Europe. But it effects any transaction involving any company or bank or anything else from those countries. Which means it's spreading all over the world.
       Investors aren't taking this lying down, I can tell you that much. Instead of lying down, they're running around whining. It means they have to pay a small amount every time they buy or sell a stock or bond involving any entity from those countries. I can tell you this much. They don't like it. Not one little bit. Which tells me, it's probably a good idea. In fact, the louder investors squeal, the better the idea sounds.
       Look, it's not that I want anyone to be unfairly targeted by taxes. In fact I think this is just the kind of tax that targets the widest demographic with the wear-with-all to actually pay a tax. Let's face it. The poor don't have enough money to pay any tax, and the middle class is disappearing before our eyes. That only leaves the wealthy. And it's the wealthy that mostly are involved with buying and selling financial transactions.
       True, there are pension plans and individual retirement plans that get involved in international financial transactions, but they mostly affect the upper middle class and wealthy. And it's not like I dislike the wealthy. I still hope to become one of them. As soon as I win the lottery. But income gaps keep on growing. Through the recovery of the Great Recession, the top one percent saw income growth of about eleven percent, but the other 99 percent have been blessed with a half a percent decrease in income.
       So financial transaction taxes target the only people who have been treated to the increases and forgives those who haven't. Of course you're bound to hear that argument that this is class warfare. Actually the class warfare is the eleven percent growth against the half percent decrease. The wealthy are still the only ones to see the end of the Great Recession.

Not Guns Again.

       Can you believe, we're still arguing about guns? Maybe it's time to come to some agreements. I don't think any sane American thinks all guns should be disallowed. I don't think any sane American thinks all ammunition should be banned. Not even most. I don't think anyone believes anyone else who wants a gun should have to jump through a year's worth of hoops for permission to own or use a gun.
       Okay, that's a start. But now comes the hard part. I think most people think that a few, very few, guns and a very few types of ammo should be restricted, for the reason that they're more dangerous and least useful for any legal activity. And I would include large capacity magazines. Of course there are those who think that an assault rifle is good protection in the home. Nonsense. In a home, it's the worst protection, short of none at all, perhaps.
       If we'd like to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, background checks is the only way available to accomplish that feat. And even though it ain't perfect, it's still our best chance. And as time goes by, the chances improve. Only the NRA and some few kooks are against it. So where do you stand?
       No matter what, the worst thing we can do is to do nothing. That only insures more of what caused us to be talking about this in the first place. Violence, like sin, will always be with us. That doesn't mean we should just accept it. Buy a shotgun and get a good night's sleep. Then tell your Congressman and Senators to be sensible for a change. That's the really hard part.

The Recycling Woes.

       Have you mastered the recycling challenge yet? I admit I haven't. Why is it that some plastic is okay and some isn't? Why is clear and brown and blue glass okay, but green glass isn't? How do you tell which metals are more valuable than others? Ya know what I think? I think the makers of glass and plastic and metals never liked this recycling business. So as long as they have to do it, they're going to make it as hard to do as they can. We should all suffer.
       Look at plastics. There are thousands of types of plastic, maybe tens of thousands of types. So they stamp tiny numbers on the bottom or someplace. You have to know which numbers are okay. I never learned. That's because half the time I can't find that number on the plastic thing I don't need anymore. Usually an empty container. It's empty because I used all the stuff inside it. Even  when I can find the numbers, they're so small or invisible I can't read it. And don't forget, I never memorized the numbers.
       Why is it that they identify green with being a good steward, ecologically, but won't accept green glass. Brown is okay. Why is that? What's the difference between blue or brown and green? If green is bad, why do they make it? Don't those companies have the technology to make other colors? What about paper? Some like magazine paper, some places don't.
       Some places demand you separate everything, others only some things. The whole recycling thing is in need of a major overhaul. If recycling is so important, and I believe it is, why do they make it so exasperating to comply with all the different and varied rules? It really does seem like they don't want you to bother. Even though recycling has become a profit center for nearly all communities and for the recycling centers that receive, separate and ship to the companies that want and depend on all that recycled product.
       I think that all metals, glass, paper and plastic should be recycled. If it can't be recycled, it shouldn't be allowed to be made. Like all that shrink wrapping from toys and etc in stores. Maybe if they couldn't shrink wrap things, maybe there'd be more clerks around to go fetch it for you. That would put more people back to work. That would be a good thing.

A Cure For Healthcare Costs.

       I'm reminded of the mistake of getting sick or injured on a Friday. Bad mistake. If you need medical attention on Friday chances are you won't be able to get that attention until Monday. Especially if you have to go to the hospital.  Hospitals only operate on Monday through Thursday. Doctors offices never operated on Wednesdays. But for hospitals, it's the weekend. That's just the way it is.
       When you arrive at the hospital on a Friday here's the way it works. First you spend several hours getting checked in. It's not like a hotel where you sign your name and get your keys. Especially if you haven't gone through any pre-admission testing. Pre-admission testing could take as much as half a day. By then, all the testing and operating sections of the hospital are shutting down for the weekend. So no matter what your problem is, broken leg, heart attack or whatever, you're stabilized and put in the holding pattern.
       If you've ever experienced a delay in an airplane and have to spend time in a holding pattern  you at least know that you're gonna get out of that airplane sometime within that day or night. Not so with a hospital. You're there until Monday at the earliest.  That means you pay for room and board plus special care for two days while making no headway towards any improvement in your situation.
       After two days and thousands of dollars or potentially tens of thousands of dollars in billings, the hospital staff and corp of specialists are ready to get down to work on you. That is unless your particular specialist is unavailable on Mondays. In which case you will get to spend another day and night in suspended animation. But finally the appointed time arrives and you get to have done what could easily have been done two days earlier if they had folks on call like other 24/7 systems do.
       And you wonder why our healthcare costs keep mounting? Weekends are hospital's biggest single income producers. Half the staff has the weekend off, but you're still stuck there. And paying there.

China And Bulls.

       Many years ago there was a professional wrestler named Hans Schmidt. Hans was the bad guy wrestler. You know the type. He would do something not allowed when the ref couldn't see it happen but then claim he didn't do it.  Then when the camera was on him and the ref was behind him, he'd do it again and then claim "Clean, Clean." I'm reminded of him when China makes similar claims.

       Now this cyber espionage is taking place and the Chinese military is sneaking into nearly every facet of our government and industry. They're stealing our technology and government secrets. Hey I'm sure they know more about our government than the President or Congress does. But their standard claim is that they do not do anything unlawful. They're "clean, clean."

       This is the country that we keep hearing is such a good trading partner. We need them, so the sayings go. Well, yes, we do need to do business with them, but no we don't need to give them easy access to all our secrets. And here's the reason why; One of these days some Chinese scientist is going to figure out how to use all that data they stole from us.

       When our companies want to do business in China, they have to build manufacturing facilities in China and give them more secret technology. If a company wants to do business with China, they still have to turn over technology or they're out of luck. Ya know, if all these companies were smart, they'd say no to China. China would still need the products, China would still have to buy from American companies and from  other countries. China on it's own couldn't have figured out how to do the actual manufacturing without getting that info from us.

      It's time to wake up and smell the damned roses. We'd soon enough find out it ain't roses the Chinese are holding in front of our noses. Bulls provide what the Chinese are holding in front of our noses.

Mark Sanford, Man Of The Great Outdoors.

       Well, what's new on the political front? Oh, here's one.  Former Gov Mark Sanford of South Carolina has announced he's throwing his hat in the ring for the Congressional seat for Charleston. In his speech he said that he had made a mistake, like everyone does at some point in our lives. True enough, although most of us don't make quite as big a mistake as Mr. Sanford did, he is at least admitting it.
       You remember, he's the governor who decided to take a hike on the Appalachian Trail and somehow wound up in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  I had no idea how far that mountain range extended. Now in case you don't know, Argentina is somewhere between the South Pole and Brazil. I can see how easy it would be to get mixed up and instead of winding up on a mountain trail, you find yourself in Buenos Aires. See, if you think you've arrived at the local bus station but actually you're at the airport, it would be easy to get on the wrong bus, er, I mean the wrong plane. Even the extra long ride might not spark a question in your mind.
       And once in Buenos Aires, it's a simple mistake to hike to your girlfriend's house. And who would know where you are? All the news reporters would be out on the Appalachian Trail trying to get a human interest story from you. Little did they know that you had a real human interest. In your girlfriend. Hey, even your wife didn't know you weren't roughing it, or is that rough-housing it.
       So I'd say that, yes you did make a simpleton mistake by getting on the wrong means of transportation. And yes you did make a simple mistake of having a girlfriend on the side and yes you did make the mistake of trying to hide it. But you finally did the right thing by stepping down as governor and getting a divorce.
       So now he's born again and wants to make amends and serve the people and get paid doing it. I guess the question that needs to be asked is whether or not he's all done with mistakes for good or might there be another hike in his future. As a man of the wilderness, will he strike out again, this time to brave the wilds of the French Riviera or perhaps Bali Bali or will he stay home and just get paid by the people?

Kick The Can Is Just A Game.

       When I was a boy, there was a game called Kick The Can. It was sorta like an expansion of Hide And Seek. Surely you've heard of that game. Anyway, it's not at all like the Kick The Can game that Congress keeps playing. See, in the old game of Kick The Can, the point was to win and have fun doing it. But in the Congressional game of Kick The Can, nobody has fun and everybody loses.
       Everybody loses because every time they kick that can, the costs go up and the government, which means the taxpayers, which means you and me, the government piles up more debt and more deficits. What it means is that instead of starting to pay on the debt by paying a little more in taxes and getting a little less in government services, instead of that, the government just delays paying on the debt. But that doesn't mean that the interest on that debt stops growing or the debt itself . The interest and the debt keeps on growing.
       The only way to stop the interest and debt from continuing to grow is to reduce the debt and pay the interest too. That's when the interest payments start to decrease. Now whatever you do, don't tell your Congressman that. Just keep it as our little secret. After all, Congress is having so much fun thinking they're doing good and at the same time hoodwinking us, that it would be unkind to let them know that we're onto their little game.
       Well, anyway, we've only got a couple of choices. We can just let Congress keep on kicking that can down the road to their hearts content until they completely ruin the country. That, or we can begin to replace these screw-ups in Congress. That, or we can begin to scream and holler and write letters and demonstrate and demand that they quit trying to trick us into believing they're doing the right thing, and stop kicking the damned can down the road.
       Of course, if we do either the second or third choices, we run the risk of hurting our representatives' feelings. Now I know that you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but remember, they're just Congressmen and Senators. It's not like they can't be replaced. In fact they should be replaced.

What Would Reagan Do?

       Whether you are a strong believer in Reaganomics or not, there's an OpEd in the New York Times today that you should find interesting. It's called Reaganism After Reagan. What it boils down to is it suggests that the policies Reagan used, worked on the problems of the 1970s and 1980s. But those problems were solved and the problems of the 2000s and 2010s are different and require different solutions.
       Now I'm not a particular fan of President Reagan, but this makes sense to me. Whether or not his policies alone were the reasons for the problems this country faced back then to be solved is another question. Today, the question needs to be not the same tired old policies, but what new policies, different policies, will help most in this time and place.
       If we still had a top income tax of 70%, I'd say we need to reduce taxes, but we don't. The top income tax has been about 35% for most of the last decade. Isn't it time to worry about the rest of the population? The top earners got their taxes nearly cut in half. But the rest of us haven't seen much help. So maybe it is time to raise the top earners a little in order for the rest of us to enjoy a little tax break.
       John F. Kennedy's quote that "A rising tide floats all boats", didn't actually work out. The wealthiest tax payers got to keep a lot more of their income, but the same can't be said for the rest of Americans. So it looks like maybe the top earners got too much of a tax cut. Maybe they need to give some of it back for the rest of us.
       Back then we had inflation of nearly 10% or more. but today it keeps hovering around 2%. Wouldn't you say we need to handle controls a little differently now-a-days? So, if you're a true Reagan fan, or detractor, maybe we should be looking for the right policies for today. Yesteryear is done.

Why Schools Don't Have Enough Money.

       This country's educational system is in decline. Partly because austerity, brought on by budget shortfalls, is facilitating the decline. Every time you read the news or watch TV, you hear about fewer teachers. Cuts to educational programs and fewer options in education.
       Then today I read about a school district Superintendent who is retiring. No big deal. This person was well respected in her community and by the school board. She left her job with a final payout to her for over $800,000. I'd call that a golden parachute. Now you shouldn't misunderstand me, she was fully entitled to that money. It wasn't some board of directors of some bank who decided to give her a fat bonus.
       No, this included almost $200,000 for unused sick days and nearly $140,000 unused vacation days. That along with another $100,000 to retire early. There's a problem here. First off, sick days are a benefit that makes good sense. It's even wise to allow an employee to carry over unused sick days. But a sick day is designed to pay you if you get sick. Your pay continues even though you can't work.
       But if you don't get sick, the benefit to you is that you didn't get sick. Should you get paid extra for not getting sick? I don't think so. That's not fair to the person who does get sick. Nobody chooses to get sick. It isn't even any fun to get sick. If you don't get sick, you should feel blessed. That should be enough.
       Accrued unused vacation days? Shouldn't you take your vacation as prescribed by your contract? Isn't the reason for vacation days to give you the opportunity to get to feel better and therefore to do your job better? Anybody who works year after year after year without taking days off to reboot themselves is doing a disservice to their employer. As though they were indispensable. Being indispensable is a fiction of the mind. Get over yourself. Take a vacation.
       In the meantime, how many teachers would that $800,000 pay for? How many more programs could be offered? How much could taxes be cut? $200,000 for unused sick days. It's sickening.

Let's Cut Defense Spending.

       Why is it still a good idea to cut defense spending? Even with the duel needs to focus on Asia and Africa? We need to cut spending for the military, not because of what they have to do in two different parts of the world, but because we can't afford to do what we've been doing in every part of the world. We'll always need to participate in helping to calm things down all over the world, just not all at the same time, forever.
       We still keep a substantial presence everywhere we've ever been involved with combat with few exceptions. We need to learn how to fight a war, help clean up after the war and then get out. Do we honestly need to protect Europe? From whom? What about Japan? Do we still need a strong presence there? In the Asian Pacific region, yes, but Japan itself?
       The kind of military we need in the 21st century is unlike the military we needed for WWII. Which is the kind of military we still demand, along with our more current needs. What we need is a lot more drones and quick response teams and gorilla warfare units. Keep the Marines intact, but convert the Army into a cyber/drone/Special Ops force and a Ready Reserve force.
       But these aren't the areas of greatest expense. It's the cost of keeping weapons systems the military no longer needs and hasn't for years, simply because they're made in some Congressman's district. Eliminate new weapons systems the military doesn't want to develop but that Congress does. What does Congress know about military needs? Very few of them ever served a day in the military.
       Congress only knows what their constituents want. They''ll fight for the most ridiculous program if it will get them a few more votes. And why should screw drivers cost $50 and toilet seats hundreds of dollars? Refer them to Home Depot or Lowes. The prices of items available in the marketplace should reflect marketplace prices. Contractor fees should also reflect marketplace prices. We don't need to create multi-millionaire plumbers. And mercenaries are just too expensive.

Shrink The Government Or Grow The Economy.

       I'd love to be convinced that spending cuts would grow the economy. I'd love to have it explained to me how firing thousands of government workers and hundreds of thousands of private sector workers would cause the economy to suddenly come alive. What would make a corporate board or CEO decide that with several million more unemployed people in the country, that this is the time to increase production?
       "Hey fellow board members, I just heard that three million more people lost their jobs Whatta ya say we start manufacturing more products for these folks to buy?" a board member might suggest. "I think this is just the time to buy some new equipment and hire an extra thousand workers to increase our already swollen inventory on the hopes that, by firing more people, everyone's taxes will go down."
       Never mind that by firing all these people the country's income will shrink and its expenses will go up. There would still be a net saving and that's all a corporation would need to convince it that good times are here at last. Don't worry that fewer people will be able to afford to buy our products, the government has more money to pay off its debt. Or if it prefers, the government might be interested in buying our product instead of paying on the debt.
       I can understand the shear joy in that board meeting as they vote to spend money wildly and borrow even more wildly. I can even see the bank board looking at the application from the corporation for borrowing more money to expand when fewer buyers exist for the product. Yep. That bank's loan board will surely jump at the chance to throw money at this endeavor. After all, banks are in the business of gambling on chancy bets.

Watch Out For That Boogeyman.

       What happens in an economic downturn? I mean what's the big problem with a recession? The big bug-a-boo is that lots and lots of people lose their jobs. So what's the big deal, except for those folks who lose their jobs? For starters, they stop paying taxes and they start getting money from government in the form of unemployment compensation. So the country starts paying out more and bringing in less.
       So while its easy to say cut spending, it's a whole lot harder to cut spending enough to make a difference without severely hurting folks who find themselves in dire straits. I really don't think anybody wants to see anybody else starve, or lose their homes. People just want the problem to go away. And cutting spending sounds like an easy way to cause that to happen.
       But if you cut spending, more people wind up unemployed. Which means even more paying out and even less coming in. But at the same time, doing nothing won't help either. If the boogeyman is attacking you in the dark, putting on blinders won't help. And just sitting there doing nothing won't help either. What you need to do is find the light switch. Light drives the boogeyman away.
       The light switch for an economic downturn is to get people back to work. To do that you need to find a way to create jobs quickly. Corporate interests aren't served by them creating jobs unless there's a need for those jobs, which means a demand for the products or services of the corporation.
       That leaves it up to government to create jobs. The only way government can create jobs is to call for infrastructure work.  Government is the only one that can pull that off. No company decides to rebuild the nations infrastructure. Only government. And lord knows we need our infrastructure rebuilt.

Washington Merry-Go-Round.

       Did you know that federal employees have had their wages frozen ever since 2010? Well it's true. They haven't had a pay raise since then. And Congress is sorta leaning toward extending it through 2013. So if you need to contact a federal agency for any reason, just remember, if they don't sound excited to hear your complaint, they may well have a complaint of their own.
       People who don't get regular pay raises are rarely as happy as people who do. Not that a pay raise is a guarantee of happiness. Now if you think about that fact and you realize that Congress is included in that pay freeze, you get a slightly different picture. You may get a picture of selfless Congressmen and Senators giving of themselves without proper compensation.
       You might get that picture. Or you might get the picture of a very unhappy group of lawmakers so bitter over not getting those increases that they've decided not to work together for the good of the country. By that I mean they don't care what's good for the country, they're not getting their share so they're not gonna give the country anything either.
       Except that they make out pretty well even without an increase in wages. What with writing books, appearing on talk shows, giving speeches and of course the ever present kickbacks, they make out pretty well. Not like the common federal worker who doesn't get paid to talk or write, just to work.
       Well, for whatever the reason, Congressmen and Senators aren't happy and it shows in their work, or lack thereof. The thing is, I'm not so sure that giving them a raise would make them any happier.  I think you'd have to call it a merit raise. You know, make them think that you think they've done a good job. The down side to that would be that they would then think that doing nothing but argue is what they should do.

The Education Two Step.

       How well have we, as Americans, done on equal educational opportunities? I can tell you that according to experts in the field, minorities still suffer on this one. But even whites, in many school districts, get the short end of the stick.That shouldn't be in this country. But as sure as I'm sitting here, it does. If you live in an affluent community, your kids are going to go to a school that is far better equipped, then a less affluent neighborhood. It's likely that teachers will be higher paid and more effective.
       That's because funding for a school is determined, to a large degree, on the tax base of the housing in that district. So if you live among wealthier folks your kids will attend schools with better funding. If you live among poor people, your school will struggle to provide the minimum.
       The deck is stacked against the poor kid no matter how you look at it. They've been trying for years, decades, to make it work fairly for the poor, but they haven't been able to succeed. There are only two ways to make up for the difference in advantage. Either the state has to fund the poorer schools much more heavily or the school tax base has to be shared more equitably.
       Even then, without a home life that offers every advantage, like that of the wealthy, the poor still will be at a disadvantage, It's unlikely there is any way to make up for that advantage, except to begin to lessen the degree of inequality between the haves and the have-nots. That means no tax breaks for the wealthy, period. At least no tax breaks that don't actually help the poor just as much as they help the wealthy. And then put a cap on the upper limit.
       It's unlikely that this country will ever see a completely fair tax system unless lobbying becomes outlawed, along with political parties. Nobody should be thinking about income redistribution, but rather opportunity redistribution. Put everyone on a level playing field. Then let the best rise to the top.

Too Much Of A Bad Thing.

       Here's the argument of the day on gun control. "There are already so many guns out there that it's too late to do anything. Any new laws would be unenforceable." Really? Do you believe that? So if there are too many murderers, we shouldn't even try to stop them from killing? If an enemy has too many soldiers, we shouldn't try to stop them from invading us?
       I strongly believe in the second amendment to the Constitution, but that doesn't mean I think anything goes. I also strongly believe that we need to outlaw assault weapons and large capacity magazines and armor piercing ammunition. Then let time begin to weed out the undesirable weapons through incentives and purchases or buy-backs.
       Just because there's a lot of something that is bad or used badly, is not a reason to allow more of that something. But rather it's time to begin to look to ways of ending the danger. Should I or my neighbor be allowed to hunt or target shoot or protect ourselves? Of course. But not indiscriminately. Just as each of these activities need to be limited, so do the weapons used.
       That's why we aren't allowed to own tanks, or shoot squirrels in town or target shoot at the neighbors house. And that's why we need to have specific types of firearms banned when we see them being used in illegal ways far too often. We had an assault weapons ban in the past and despite lies to the contrary, it worked.
       If you have a strong urge to use one of these things, join the military. If you're too old for the military, grow up. We don't need you to be ready to fight and kill the government with assault weapons. Do it with your vote, at the ballet box. If you loose the vote, you need to rethink your views.

Who Do We Think We Am?

       Uh Oh. Now they've done it. Now uncle Sam has gone and accused a rating agency of fraud over the financial meltdown, because of loan bundling. What is our government thinking? These are the agencies who have already downgraded our credit worthiness once. And the threat is sorta out there that the government could go after the others as well. Who do we think we am?
       I mean we can't just go after big guys like this. Remember some of these guys are too big to fail. And that includes the management. You might get away with the night watchman or the janitor, but the whole company? No, we've over stepped our role here. It's one thing to find fault with them, or to pay a blue ribbon committee to investigate them, but hey, come on, actually charge them? With fraud?
       What if they had to go bankrupt because of this? Who would be there to downgrade our government's credit rating when we do something stupid? Like refusing to pay our debt bills when they come due. Look, I understand they may have actually done somethings wrong. Maybe even broke the law. But can we charge them with a crime just for that?
       Why, if we did that we'd have to charge a whole lot of other big companies and banks for similar crimes. Oh, wait, didn't we say we couldn't do that because they were too big to fail? Didn't we also decide we couldn't even charge any CEOs or CFOs or any COs of any kind? Why? Because that would look bad on their resumes I guess.
       Why is it that any company or bank is too big to fail? If a bank is too big to fail, isn't it too big? When a too big to fail bank is in trouble, we have to bail them out to keep them solvent. Well if we start charging them with crimes, they might begin to become insolvent. Then we'd have to bail them out again. Maybe if we have to bail out any of these credit rating companies, maybe we could ask them, nicely, to raise our credit rating instead of lowering it.
     

You're Credit Card, Strip Searched.

       America, we've got a problem. Well, actually we've got a whole host of problems. But I'm talking about two particular areas of concern. They are drone strikes and cyber-warfare. Folks don't like to think about either. They just aren't the stuff that most people want to worry about. We'd all like them both to just go away. After all, you can't put your hand on them, feel them.
       The folks who do care about them are government and corporate types and people at the ground zero of these two types of warfare. If you happen to be meeting with a terrorist leader, it might be wise to keep it short and then get out of there. If you're a CEO, you might want to get your hands on some really good software and someone smart enough to be able to use it wisely.
       The problem for America when it comes to drones is that people in targeted countries are mad as wet hens about it. But in actual fact, there is less collateral damage from a drone then from an invasion. Even a small one. The problem for America on cyber-warfare is to know how far we can go to be preemptive and how do we get corporate America to go along with our help.
       Here's the thing though. Just because the government can help protect us, doesn't mean we should accept that help. We need to know what we have to give up to get that help. Look at all the protection we were given after 911. Much of it was good, but some of it wasn't as good. Like searching 80 and 90 year old ladies at airports.
       Of course those searches were openly done. We knew they were happening. But what about the searches made legal that we never knew about. Like phone taps and internet spying. Who knows if we have our mail searched, or our credit card purchases examined. It's probably being done. What about keeping those records indefinitely? The real problem we have is trust. Do we?