The Bright Side Of Sequestration.

       Do you remember the Upper Big Branch mine disaster of 2010? The owners of that mine was Massey Energy. They have since been bought by Alpha Natural Resources. My bet is that it's all owned by the same people, but I could be wrong. Well, as it turns out, Massey had received 1422 citations for safety violations of which they had contested one quarter.
       Not that they're alone. In fact the government had an average backlog of 10,400 citations, and that's just the cases that get contested. It's so bad that the Federal government, Congress, put together a taskforce of extra lawyers and judges to try to get the caseload down to the current 5500. But now, because of sequestration, that taskforce is being shuttered. The funding had to be cut. Happy Easter.
       I can see it now. The Massey family of West Virginia must be pulling out all the stops this year and celebrating with some special doings. Lets all hope they're taking a Carnival Cruise. Here's the thing, if they are found to be negligent in those contested cases, the fines for all their citations will be much higher.
       So here we are with an energy source that is the absolute dirtiest fuel in the world. The biggest polluter  before, during and after use and they can't even keep from killing and endangering their own employees. Ya see, they keep doing their level best to keep the cost of your electric bill down.
       One way they have of doing that is to ignore safety issues for their employees and then fighting citations when they get caught. And now that the federal government can't run a tight enough ship to stay open, or at least keep important agencies at full staff, the coal companies don't even have to pay lawyers to fight the safety citations. They just keep saving us money and they just keep endangering their employees. Kudos to Massey and the rest of the modern day coal barons.

What's A Life Worth?

       There was an editorial in the Washington Post today, by Eugene Robinson, that mentioned a point I  found important. He pointed out that if the Assault Weapons Ban that had been in place had not been allowed to expire, the Newtown massacre would not have killed as many children. That, even if only one life had been saved by that fact it would have been worth it to me. Perhaps not our members of Congress, but it would have been for me.
       That's a powerful statement. Just how important is a single life of a child or even an adult to you? How important is that single life to your Congressman? Do you know? Is your congressman more concerned with the lives of children or with being in the good graces of the NRA? Is his job more important to him than one child's life? Because if it is, he should not be sitting in Congress. It's too important a job for the likes of him.
       If we in this country can't be trusted to do what is right, if we can't be counted on to hold our elected officials to be accountable for the lives of our children, then we don't deserve a safe environment for ourselves either. The thing is, I know that every single one of us wants to be safe. And every single one of us wants our children to be safe. But if we allow the NRA to interpret the second amendment to the Constitution for us, then none of us will be safe.
       Imagine actually allowing the fox to guard the hen-house. The NRA speaks for gun manufacturers, not it's members, and certainly not for the three hundred million plus citizens of America. Oh, there is one more group the NRA seems to speak for, members of Congress, that's who. So ask your Congressman if he thinks his job is more important to him than the lives of children. The answer is more important than his party affiliation.

It's Schools Again.

       Whatta you think about school vouchers? They place funding for school improvement in the hands of parents, right? Vouchers force under-achieving schools to clean up their act and improve or else, right? Well,  all that's true to some extent. The problem isn't that families are given the opportunity to pick and choose the school that best provides for their children, the problem is that unless the vouchers provide all the funding necessary for children to attend any school they choose, it will only subsidize wealthy families to send their children to the more prestigious schools while leaving the poor stuck where they are in the lowest performing schools
       Why do I think that? Partly because I don't trust Congress or school systems to get the rules right. See if a rich kid is attending one of the better schools in his or her region, I don't think the government should be providing the means for him or her to transfer to the best school. That needs to be up to the family. I think vouchers should be based on a needs formula. If you have a child in a poorly run school you should have the opportunity to send your child to a better school. And government should help.
       But what if, even with vouchers, you can't afford the better school? Seems to me the voucher is wasted unless it pays the whole tuition. But even that isn't the best answer. That's because, then, what do you do with the under-achieving school? If everybody wants to transfer out of it, and who wouldn't want to, do you shut them down? If you shut down all the under-achieving schools, there wouldn't be enough classroom space in the regions affected nor would there be enough good teachers.
       It seems to me that the only way to handle the problem is not with vouchers to transfer, but with task-forces,  teams of specialists, to descend on under-performing schools to turn them around. Give these teams the authority and funding, through the vouchers, to make the necessary changes. Both in facilities and personnel. Give them the supplies and equipment they will need to improve. Give them the dedicated, enthused teachers they will need to be successful.

What's In a Name?

       North Dakota just recently passed into law an anti-abortion bill outlawing abortions at about six weeks. Isn't that about the time many women find out for sure they're pregnant? But what really caught my eye is the name of the Governor of North Dakota who signed that bill into law. Governor Dalrymple. Dalrymple, isn't that a neat name? What could it possibly mean?
       Most names have their beginnings in a description of where the person lived or what he did or whose son he was. A person named York might have lived in that region of England. Someone named Miller can probably trace his ancestry back to a millwright. Or a guy named Donaldson was very likely the son of Donald. But there are the Mcs and the Macs and then there were the Micmacs. The McCarthy family hailed from one region while the MacDonald family owed alegence to another region.
       Up in the Scandinavian countries it's not unusual to know a person by his ancestral founding father like Erickson, as in Erick's son. Erick was big in Scandinavian folklore and history. But what about names like Dalrymple. Could a Dal have rympled someone somewhere back in prehistory? What's a rymple? As for Micmacs, that's the name of a tribe of native Americans.
       That's another thing. Some people talk like they're native Americans and don't want any more non-white, non-Christian, Non-Americans to be allowed to enter their country. These folks almost always turn out to be children of fairly recent immigrants who live in commune style encampments in the Dakotas. They often carry military style firearms.
       But even those folks we refer to as Native Americans actually came from somewhere else. It just happened to be thousands of years ago. So who can claim to be true natives of America. Well, legally it means anyone who is born in North or South America. Of course in the U.S.A. we think of Americans as those born in the U.S.A. Sorta arrogant don't you think?

If I Say Jump, You Say How High.

       The decibel level of the freedom of speech bestowed upon corporations and the wealthy by our Supreme Court has all but drowned out the freedom of speech of the citizens of this country. This is where  unequal rights has its beginnings for Americans. You can speak louder and longer and in more influential ways, the more money you have. Our Supreme Court has bestowed the power corporations long demanded when it decided that corporations are people. Can you imagine? The only two things a corporation can't do is run for office or vote for those who do.
       But what a corporation can do now is to spend billions of dollars to bend the electoral process toward their goals, no matter if those goals might be away from the goals and wishes of the majority. We've seen how corporate interests are protected in gun legislation.True the NRA is not a for profit corporation, but through the millions gifted to the NRA by gun manufacturers they do as they are told and terrify legislators into doing the bidding of the gun lobby.
       You can't blame corporate boards for wanting things to go their way. We all want things to go our way. But there is no equality between a billion dollar corporate interest and an individual interest. You can only pretend it's a fair and level field. The CEO of a major corporation can make an appointment with any legislator almost anytime. Can you? You'll be hard pressed to make an appointment with your hair stylist.
       By allowing corporations to spend without limit on the election process, in it's decision in the Citizens United case and others, the Supreme court has provided freedom of speech, but it has struck down speech in the actual exercise of that freedom. The problem lies in the influence provided to corporate leadership. Since a corporation is in fact, not a person and since it cannot think or speak, that ruling has bestowed that additional privilege upon the leadership of that corporation. The added influence is the problem. ITIS. It's The Influence Stupid. ITMH. It's The Money Honey.

What Does A Day Matter?

       I guess I must be a lot older than all these folks in Washington who're expending all this energy fighting about the U.S. Postal Service and whether or not they need to deliver mail on Saturdays. Now I get mail almost every day. And I throw away most of what I get without reading it. Of course that's just me. I know there are lonely people out there who pour over every page of every piece of junk mail they get. I sorta feel sorry for those folks. It must be lonely to be that lonely.
       Of course there are two schools of thought on junk mail. On the one side there are those who are convinced that if only the USPS could charge the same price for a piece of junk mail as first class mail, then all would be solved. The other side of the argument thinks that all that junk mail subsidizes your first class mail. Neither side wants Saturday deliveries to stop.
       Of course those two sides together only account for ten percent of the people. It does account for about ninety percent of Congress though.  But as I said, I must be a lot older than all those Congressmen, because I can remember when we got delivery of mail twice a day, morning and afternoon. I also remember the hew and cry over the Post Office deciding to cease twice daily deliveries and go to once a day. You'd have thought it signaled the end of civilization on earth. But so far as I can recall, we did live through that horrible experience.
       I admit it was touch and go for a while. People who got their morning paper in the morning and their afternoon paper in the afternoon were now getting them both at the same time. I think that's what saved the day for paper boys. Maybe I don't get enough mail to appreciate how important it is to get mail on Saturdays. Maybe if I got really important or interesting mail, I'd feel differently, but mostly I get bills or birthday cards. At my age, I could do with an extra day without those kinds of reminders.

Maybe The Forefathers Were Smarter Than Some People Think.

       I wasn't going to write anything today in the blog. But then I read the local newspaper. There were two letters to the editor that caught my eye. Both had to do with gun rights as loosely explained in the 2nd amendment of the constitution. I say loosely explained because the 2nd amendment doesn't list the specific guns that are permitted or those that are specifically banned.
       What it does say is that because a well regulated militia is necessary and advisable, people must be allowed to keep and bare arms. This right cannot be infringed or taken away. It doesn't say any person can keep and bare any weapon he or she wants.
       Why do you suppose the forefathers didn't specify particular weapons? You don't suppose they were farsighted enough to realize that some weapons should not be held or borne by just anybody, do you? Do you think there might have been some crazys around way back then? If so, what's the likelihood that the forefathers might have known about that kind of risky person and not tried to list every gun then known or dreamed of?
       Hey, I'll bet they hadn't even heard of the NRA way back then. If they had, maybe they would have outlawed them and similar organizations and corporations. Too bad they didn't know about the NRA. Think how peaceful things would be without that dangerous, inflammatory, attack-mongering organization.
       It's simply inconceivable that our forefathers would have wanted anybody and everybody to own a weapon that can kill thirty or forty people without reloading, knowing that some people would misuse and abuse those rights. At least not without some way to curb those rights for such people.

Why Can't We Have Spring Yet?

       I'm sitting here looking out at the snow coming down. Here it is March 19. The day after tomorrow is officially Spring. Punxsutawney Phil promised us an early Spring but here we are still waiting for it to happen to us. Easter is just around the corner, but we're still stuck in New Year's Eve. Doesn't that ground hog know it's time to flip the switch? Maybe he's too busy chucking wood to notice.
       It's not so much that my life will change if Spring is still a couple of weeks off. But the thing is it doesn't seem like it can change until the weather changes. Don't get me wrong, I don't plan om taking out a loan to plant flowers this year. I never take out a loan to plant flowers. I never plant that many flowers that I have to worry about how much they cost. I admit, however, that if a flower is to costly, I look for a cheaper flower.
       It's not that I want my home to look like a cheapskate planned the landscaping or floral design, its just that I'm not that much into it. I'd like things to look sensational, but sensational on a dime. Actually, my problem is that I don't stick with gardening. I don't mind planting, but I do mind watering and I hate weeding. I think that I'd be better off, if I planted weeds. That way, they might die off and flowers would crowd in and take over. It's just a thought.
       All that stuff is in my mind, but it's still snowing out so the local hardware store isn't likely to sell me any seeds yet. Actually they're unlikely to ever sell me any seeds. The last time I bought seeds was six years ago. I came across them a couple of days ago. They're probably no good any more, but I'll hang on to them a few more years as a reminder.
       When it stops snowing, I'll have to go out and brush the snow off my car. Unless I decide not to go any place. Then I'll just leave the snow on the car as insulation against the cold. Maybe if I wait long enough the sun will come out and melt the snow.  Probably not.

It Might Not Be A Kodak Moment.

       There is some great new legislation being introduced into law in some states. I especially like the ones that make it illegal to take any pictures of any farming operation. In other words if a farm operation is breaking the law, you'd better not try to force them to stop by taking pictures and using those pictures to prove the farm is breaking the law. Now who would be in favor of that kind of law? Well, these farms that are breaking the law, they might want to stop people from exposing them. Anybody else? No?
       Oh! Wait! I know some other people who would want such a law. State legislators who are getting huge donations from such agribusiness, that's who. After all, it's not a question of public health or animal cruelty or breaking the law, it's about people trying to prove any of those offences. The idea of these laws seems to be to keep the public from knowing whether or not the food they buy is safe and if the animals producing this food are treated humanely. After all, who says the food we eat must be safe and the animals must be treated humanely? Oh, the same government that won't let us know if things are not right.
       If you ask me, I'd say the government is a bit confused. On the one hand farms can't break the law and on the other hand nobody's allowed to prove a farm is breaking the law. I'm not suggesting the government should have inspectors at farms, but then they do have inspectors. The thing is, they don't have enough inspectors so it should be a good thing to have a whistle-blower where and when they don't have inspectors on site.
       Why is the government mad at whistle-blowers for taking the pictures they must have to prove mistreatment? Did you forget that state legislators get huge sums of money from agribusiness?

Good Solutions Can Be Avoided, And Are.

       Boy, everybody is putting forth ideas on how to resolve the budget problem and the sequester. Even Congress is beginning to understand what sequester means. In fact some Senators and Representatives are beginning to squeal just a tad. I say just beginning because it's taking a while for any cutbacks to adversely affect them. See, they thought that because the sequester can't touch their pay or benefits that they were home free. They thought they could foist this on the rest of us and be insulated from it.
       What they're finding out, however, is that their staffs and travel is getting cut. Can you imagine that a Congressman or Senator can no longer travel anywhere, anytime on the government card? Or they can't hire one more staffer to handle the party calendar  And can you imagine the outrage that will ensue when it finally dawns on them they are the ones who caused this to happen?
       Well, when that day comes, we'll see some correctional legislation take place. Such new legislation may not help the people of America, but it most certainly will allow for legislative perks to be reinstated and maybe improved.
       Meanwhile, back on the budget and sequester front, the suggestions heard from our legislators consist of either taxing the rich or taking away the safety nets of the poor. The only sane and actually potentially successful ideas come from people who suggest things like a carbon tax and or eliminating  tax loopholes that favor special interests like carried interest, like kind exchanges, and nine figure IRAs to name a few.
       A carbon tax is the most fair because it targets everyone but an allowance would have to be made in the form of a tax refund for the poor. It also would provide new jobs, new technological advances and help to ease global warming.
       Wanna know what the biggest problem blocking a solution to our economic and budget problems is? When it was decided that corporations were people and they could spend any amount on political influence of elections. Big money has created big budget problems for America.

Government Watchdogs At work.

       Do you follow any of this stuff? There's an article in the New York Times today about SAC having to pay a $602 million fine for insider trading. That's a record fine for insider trading. Now, the fact that such a fine is record breaking is bad enough, but SAC sold about $1 billion in stocks from that deal. From where I sit, that's a pretty good deal.
       If they have to pay $602 million and sell it for $1 billion, that works out to about a 66% markup. I can tell you from experience that a 66% markup over cost is pretty good income. And on top of that is the possibility that they might not have had to pay anything. In fact my guess is that there was a lot of insider trading going on that didn't get caught. Add to that the fact that nobody's going to jail and I'd say it was a pretty good day for SAC.
       I don't want to seem to be a complainer, but somebody at SAC had to be the one, or two, who decided to cheat. Somebody had to think, hey, we can make some real money on this deal if we use this information. That guy had to think, it may be illegal, but hey, the money's great. It's not as though they didn't know what they were doing was illegal.  They counted on it. Or just didn't care. But guess what? Nobody's going to jail. Not even a slap on the wrist.
       Now that's what I call a real deterrent.  This company, SAC Capital Advisors, get's to keep a big portion of it's profits, nobody is blamed and they get to try again. Boy, does that put the rest of the field on notice. Yes-sirree-bob if you break the law, you might get caught and have to pay a reasonable fine, but otherwise you're home free. So now the trick for SAC and others, is not to get caught. That way you get to keep all of it.

Are Subsidies Only For Successful Industries?

       Why is it that some folks so bitterly hate the idea of giving subsidies to the alternative energy industry? When any industry begins, it needs help to become both affordable and successful. For the oil industry, that came in the form of government subsidy, although they may not have called it that at the time. Heck, the oil industry still gets mountains of subsidies today. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe people think we'll still be giving mountains of subsidies to the alternative energy industry many years from now.
       But no, the problem isn't many years from now, the problem is they don't want to subsidize the alternatives now. Everybody's heard of Solyndra, the solar company that got half a billion in loan guarantees and then declared bankruptcy. The main reason you've heard about it is because the anti-subsidy folks won't let you forget it. But if you go back into the history of the oil industry, you'll find loads of companies that went out of business.
       You never hear about the oil companies who got subsidies and still went broke. In the early days of oil exploration, they missed a whole lot more than they hit oil. It took time for oil research to figure out better ways of predicting where oil is. Well, guess what? Alternative energy needs the same sort of time to get it right too.
       What it boils down to is whether or not you believe in science? Are we causing global warming or not? Is there such a thing as global warming? Did Godzilla eat Adam and Eve's baby girl? Did Adam and Eve have a baby girl? These are the questions that keep great minds up at night. Great minds wonder why there are such silly questions. Great minds wonder why we still subsidize an overwhelmingly successful and hugely profitable oil industry, but refuse to give the same opportunity to alternatives.

Things Are Bitter In Washington.

       Just in case you didn't know it, we've got a problem in Washington D.C. It's our capital and that's where things get done, for the good of the country. Only now things don't get done for the good of the country. Not even for the bad of the country. If we were talking about inflation, we'd be saying Washington is experiencing stagnation or even more to the point it would be experiencing stagflation.
       Here's the deal. Washington is divided into two camps. Sorta like a war with two opposite sides. On the one side we have the conservatives and ultra-conservatives with a smattering of moderates known as the Republicans. They have a lot of hangups, but mainly they will not accept any new taxes on the rich who they see as the job creators. They believe that our out of control debt and deficit must be brought under control by shrinking government by cutting spending. Except for defense.
       On the other side, you have the progressives and liberals with a smattering of moderates known as the Democrats. They have their own set of hangups, but mainly they demand that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid be protected and entitlements that protect the poor must be saved. They believe that defense should be cut  along with modest cuts to entitlements, waste should be ended and we need a tax increase on those who have profited most from our financial predicament, the rich.
       A substantial majority of both camps agree on quite a few things, but they can't get past these major stumbling blocks of taxes and entitlements and defense. Since they can't get past these road blocks, they won't agree on anything except maybe to name a new post office or something. They could actually do a lot of good things for the country, but while each side suggests they should do these things, neither side will agree to do them.
       There really is only one thing that both sides are willing to do. That is to bombard the other camp with negative attacks. Both sides are good at that. They are both adept at convincing their bases they are in the right. This allows them to draw untold wealth from the pockets of their most cherished supporters. This wealth enables them to continue the fight to the bitter end. It's the bitter end that's killing all of us.

An ONION Report That Hurts.

       There's a shocking report today in THE ONION that the IAEEA has found that Chinese third graders have fallen behind American high schoolers. The article goes on to point out that China is deeply concerned about this failure of it's education system over this report. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IAEEA) states that, based on it's test results, American 14 to 18 year olds have forged ahead of Chinese 8 year olds in Algebra, biology and chemistry. Even China's smartest third graders are testing no better than the average American high school student.
       For those of you not familiar with THE ONION, it bills itself as one of the most respected news outlets in the country. For those of you who are familiar with THE ONION, you can explain to the unfamiliar that everything in THE ONION is spoof and untrue. But much of it is completely humorous and some is down right funny.
       There's another side of THE ONION's articles. They nearly always point to a sliver of truth. Here in this article the sliver that pains us is that China and a fair number of other countries are turning out students with a better education than our kids get. When it comes to grade level comparisons, America is way down the list of  industrialized countries. We're almost even with some developing countries.
       But you'd never know it by the way our government acts. The general impression seems to be that "more money doesn't necessarily translate into a better education." Therefore perhaps less money will improve our educational process. You can scoff at that statement, but just look at the way government at every level has cut funding for education.
       Ya see, if you buy the argument that more money doesn't provide better education, then it's an easy step to "let's try less money for a change." And it's easy to do that so long as your only interest is in teaching for some standardized test instead of the subject matter of a wide range of subjects, like teaching our kids how to think. It's true we need to make changes. But first lets figure out what changes to try, then figure out how much that will cost. Let that determine how much we spend on education.

The Good Old Days

       Ya know, doctors are a lot different than they used to be. I can remember when you'd go to the Doctor's office, which was in his house. He'd invite you into his examining room which was where his desk was and a table with stirrups, all in one room. Maybe a portable privacy screen too. He'd have you sit down and he'd ask you what was wrong. If you told him you were there for your annual checkup, he'd ask you how you feel. If you said good or okay, he'd say okay come back when you don't feel okay.
       Now-a-days if you said you are here for your annual checkup, he'd ask "why weren't you here for a six month checkup?"
       When he said you were fine, you usually were. Now-a-days the Doctor never says you're okay. Instead he orders forty seven tests that suggest there may be nothing obviously wrong with you. But come back in three weeks for further tests.
       And the equipment is different too. The table with the stirrups might still be there, but no desk. Instead there's a counter with a sink in it and a computer on the counter. And his nurse has already taken your temperature with a gauge that just touches your forehead. While she's doing that a cloth strap tightens around your arm and a readout tells her your blood pressure. In the old days, the Doctor would hold the back of his hand on your forehead and mutter something.
       It used to be that the doctor almost always wore a suit and tie. Today he wears a white jacket or scrubs.  You never got to go to the Doctor's office if you were sick. The Doctor came to your house if you were sick. Usually very, very early in the morning or late at night. Now-a-days, you don't go to the Doctor's office if you're sick either. Today, his nurse tells you to go to the emergency room if you're sick.
       Back then there were only a few things you could get sick from. Usually not very serious. Now-a-days you can get sick from nearly everything and often do. It's a good thing for emergency rooms. I guess things are much better now-a-days in medicine. It's a good thing they are, because there's so much more to get sick from.

.Stop Griping About Food Stamps.

       Please allow me to vent today. This morning on MSNBC's Morning Jo, I listened to a Republican Senator complain about ALL THE PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS. When questioned about it, he pointed out that there are (something like) eleven million more people on food stamps. HELLO! For every person who lost their job, good paying job, because of the Great Recession, at least three people were forced to rely on food stamps and probably more like four people.
       When a spouse loses a good paying job and even if he or she finds work paying much less, which has been the case for many people since 2008, then that family is forced to look for help from sources like food stamps. So if somewhere near ten million people lost their jobs during the Great Recession then you might expect as many as forty million more people on food stamps. So to keep me from losing my mind completely, please stop complaining about the people on food stamps.
       If you must complain about somebody or some group, complain about those responsible for the Great Recession. Blame the banking system and Wall Street. Them and government oversight and the relaxing of regulations. Now I know, some will claim it was the bursting of the housing bubble that caused the Great Recession. But the housing bubble was created by the expanded profit centers for home financing and the even more profitable profit center from mortgage foreclosures.
       Of course lots of people bought more home than they could afford. Except that mortgage brokerages found ways to attract people of lesser ability to pay, by offering mortgages with nearly no interest and extreme long durations. Then after a prescribed period, those interest rates mushroomed. This ain't theory folks, this is what happened. And government stood by and allowed it to happen and still hasn't corrected the regulations, so it could easily happen again.
       Now I'm not frothing at the mouth at the Republicans alone. The Democrats and the current and past Presidents did nothing or little either. But the real question is how do we cure these problems. First lets worry about the economy. That's where the debt and deficit will be best handled. That's where the roles of food stamp recipients will decrease the quickest. That's where unemployment benefits demand will shrink to next to nothing.
     
If we don't want to tax small businesses or other job creators, then how about taxing any company holding funds outside America at a rate of fifty percent higher than their tax rate. It would amount to a penalty for keeping profits from being brought into America. Estimates are that it costs the U.S. over $300 billion per year. So we'd get that $300 billion or we'd get $450 billion if the companies wanted to keep their money overseas. That way we could afford to reduce the tax rate on business.

Lobbyists Always Win.

       Are you aware that both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington agree that we need a major overhaul in our tax code. Tax reform could happen this year. Nearly everyone is on board. Isn't that amazing? That our Congressional leaders and the President all agree? Does this mean the end of such indecent tax loopholes as carried interest that allows hedgefund managers to make obscene incomes but pay only 20% in taxes? I'll bet you pay more than that don't you? How about professionals like Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann and her dentist husband who get a farm subsidy of six figures annually?
       Well what chance do you give that such waste will disappear from the tax code? In the third quarter of last year about 440 corporations and lobbying firms spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying Congress. Lobbying has tripled in the last four years and the government is just now beginning to get serious about the tax code. Imagine what the future will be like if you'd like to get to talk to your Representative or Senators?
       I can envision a visit to Washington to include at least one day in the crowded waiting room or hallway of your favorite legislator with perhaps a copy of his or her newsletter as a keepsake of your time there. In the meantime, a steady stream of lobbyists will find their way in and out of the office. That doesn't include those who go in, but seem to stay.
       Then there's the bowling alleys, gym and cafeteria. Of course the more serious lobbyists will be spending their time in 5 star dining and party facilities with the appropriate legislator. I can't see how our legislators will be able to get any work done at all. What with parties, meetings and strategy sessions with lobbyists, there will be little time left to actually write any new tax legislation. Thank goodness the lobbying firms will just happen to have a copy of their recommendations in the form of a formal proposal, ready for the vote.

Of Drones And Clones.

        There's a lot being said and a lot of questions being asked, of late, about drones and how or when and against whom they can be used. I have to say, that at first, I didn't see the harm in using these things against terrorists. I didn't think about using them in America to kill terrorists. I assumed that any terrorist in our country should be arrested and tried.  I suppose they could be tracked by a drone until the police could get there.
       But there are other considerations. The more I think about it and the more I hear and read, the more I realize there needs to be some limitations put on the indiscriminate use of drones. Our president is rather quiet on the subject. But he seems to be ever widening the use of these things without much conversation outside the White House. I'm not convinced that's a good idea.
       It might be fine for Mr. Obama to set his own limitations, but what about the next president, or the one after that? At some point, and Senator Rand Paul is right about this, at some point we're gonna get someone in the White House who would use them indiscriminately. How would it be if a bad guy you think shouldn't have his finger on the trigger, is never the less in that position? What if his clone got elected next? What if the military decided to clone the best drone pilots to drive more drones?
       Another thing to consider is the question of who can be targeted. Does a person who happens to be related to a terrorist, by marriage, meet the terms of the definition? What if I once attended a party at which a terrorist also happened to attend? Does that mark me for a stinger missile? Hey, if I find fault with any president and their actions or policies, am I doomed? Laugh if you will, but did you know that people are being held at Guantanamo for financing terrorists or being drug cartel members if that cartel has given a terrorist money. What if I send a donation, unwittingly, to a terrorist, thinking it's for disaster relief? Must I then start watching the sky?
       These are questions the Congress should be asking. There are lots of folks in Congress that should enjoy questioning this president on such matters. Maybe then we could get off the austerity kick.

I Want It All.

       There's been a lot of talk of late about investors having some say in how much management gets paid. In Europe it's really beginning to catch on. And why not? If you consider what a lot of these folks get paid per year, you'd be surprised. Or maybe not. I guess many people aren't surprised that some CEOs make millions each year. After all, if an NFL quarterback can make $120 million over five years, why not the head of a major corporation employing hundreds of thousands of workers?
       But just stop and think about it a little bit. If you make $120 million over five years, that works out to about $24 million per year. Isn't that a bit obscene? I mean, what family you know that couldn't live on that much for the rest of all of their lives? And do it quite comfortably thank you very much. Same with corporate leaders. One year's income would be sufficient to live on, easily, for life.
       So what's the deal with these mega-income packages? Hey, even when they get fired, the severance pay is enough alone to feed a whole town indefinitely. So it's not based on any scale of need. The pay seems to be based on a competition. If one guy gets ten million, then the next guy wants ten million and one. Actually it's more like wanting, and getting, twenty million.
       But a lot of these folks are way past the tens and twenties. They're into the hundreds of millions and several hundreds of millions. There was talk a while back about the Treasury making a trillion dollar coin or bill. If things continue, corporations will need those high priced coins for their higher priced bosses.
       But I can see the point of these corporate investors. They'd like a piece of that action for themselves. Can't say I blame them. After all, they're the ones who put up the money in the first place. If a CEO wants a hundred million, let him put up the money for it himself.

Above The Law.

       I don't know if you've noticed, but with all the talk about the sequester and budget cuts and cuts to entitlements and cuts to defense and cuts to just about everything in sight, there's no talk of cuts to Congress and the President. Well, it turns out the president's salary can't be cut by Congress, period. Government workers pay can't be cut too easily, if at all, but they can be furloughed for a while or a day a week, without pay.
       But you won't be seeing Congress take a pay cut or be asked to lose a day's pay every week. There's an article in the Washington Post today that tries to explain this situation. The article mentions the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act from 20 years ago, it mentions the 27th Amendment and a lot of other suggestions for Congress not losing any pay. But even the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) says you can't touch Congressional pay. They just don't say why.
       Did you know that even when a Senator or Congressman tries to pass a law to cut their pay, it's illegal? You know, when they're grandstanding. So you can't even say that it would take an act of Congress. It would take more than that. At least that's the opinion of the OMB. Apparently it would take a constitutional convention and a new amendment or something.
       So, even though the Senate and the House of Representatives don't seem to be able to accomplish anything, or to be more exact, Senators and Representatives don't seem to be able to accomplish anything, they're still gonna get paid. In full. With no furloughs and no grandstanding about how this one or that one wants to cut their own salary. It looks like the only way they can do that would be to donate their salaries back to the government. Now you could hold your breath waiting for them to do that, but frankly, they have important work to do and just can't take the time off. That is until they want to schmooze some wealthy donors.
       It's a sorry state of affairs when you can't abuse Congress financially. I say that because Congress seems to be able to financially abuse nearly every other department and facet of government. I don't think they understand the ramifications of their actions. Or maybe they do, but think they're teaching a lesson.

A Little Old Fashioned Swap.

       It may be that the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline should go the way of the dodo bird. It's not that the pipeline is a good idea. It's certainly not that this tar sands oil from Canada is good stuff, it's some of the worst stuff. And it's not that the fight isn't a good fight, it was. But everyone needs to smell the roses. The State Department made some honest statements. The oil is going to get used no matter what. Fighting that is like taking a swing at the wind. You'll never land a punch.
       That doesn't mean something good can't come out of it. What if I suggested a push to add an addendum to the agreement to allow the pipeline to become a reality? What if that addendum set stronger requirements on coal, oil and gas to lower emissions? What if it came as an agreement with Republicans for more funding for the EPA and enforcement?
       Both parties have come to understand strong-arm tactics. Republicans with their talk of no more taxes because we've already done that. It's done. Democrats forced cuts to defense. Now it appears that both parties have received what they wanted. Tax increase for the Democrats and large cuts to spending for the Republicans. So even though it was done unwillingly, they both compromised.
       Okay then, why not get folks to compromise on the Keystone XL. They get the pipeline, we get some improvements to pollution oversight, funding and limits. If they don't go for that, suggest additional subsidies for renewable energy as the offset. Knowing how they hate the idea of renewables, they'll surely go along with the emissions and enforcement.

The Art Of Governing.

       The sequester begins and a potential government shutdown looms. Could our times seem more dire? Can our great nation find it's way out of this morass? Is there a way for our two parties to come to some agreement? Is there hope for the future? Is there some sort of agreement that is attainable? These and other questions will be answered in this treatise?
       As I speak, our leaders are locked in talks over the differences they face. These talks are difficult for our leaders to come together and shake hands on a deal. They are difficult because our great leaders are not in the same towns or states as the other members of the leadership. This unusual situation seems to be complicated by the fact that none of them knows the phone numbers of the other leaders.
       Of course this problem will be erased as soon as they all get back to Washington. Unfortunately, once they do get back to Washington, they will face a completely different set of difficulties. These include the unwillingness to appear to be compromising the stances of the various positions. No leader is permitted to seem prepared to compromise.
       Never the less, all of our leaders are confident of a deal being struck to keep the government open. Well, all except for a select few leaders who believe our country would be better served by no government. But the leaders are prepared to come to agreement at any moment, any day, week, month, year or decade.
       The solution to the problem of the deadlock is tantalizingly simple. All it will take to satisfy our leaders and their bases is for the other side to accede to the demands of the other side. In other words if the Democrats would accept, in its entirety, the demands of the Republicans, or if the Republicans would completely agree to the demands of the Democrats, then all would be saved. Our great country might then enjoy the fruits of the labors of our great leaders. As it is, our great leaders stubbornly cling to their individual positions like life-jackets on a sinking ship. Do they know something we don't?

When it comes to Ice Ages.

       It turns out that most climate change deniers have been hinging their argument on the fact that in the history of the ice from the Antarctic Ice Sheet, covering the last Ice Age, the ending of that Ice Age began 800 years before the increase of carbon dioxide began to show up. So they assumed that it was the natural warming of the earth that caused the CO2 to show up. No proof, but it did make some sense.

       But now comes a new study that points out something that makes perfect sense. The way ice is made at the Antarctic, the arctic and places like Greenland and elsewhere, and especially during an Ice Age, is that snow falls. The snow traps air in it. Over time as snow continues to fall and snowpack builds, the pressure of the weight of snow compresses the earlier snow into ice.

       So what, you ask? Well in these recent tests, it has been proven that if snow falls on year one, that is the date of the air in the snow. But that snow doesn't become ice for hundreds of years. So when the ice is brand new, the air trapped in it is actually hundreds of years older, as much as 800 years or older.

       Now for some Global Warming deniers this will seal their argument and they may be convinced. Unfortunately, for many deniers of Global Warming, science or facts have no bearing on their opinions. These deniers don't like the idea of being told that they are causing a problem for our climate. They don't like being told that they are the cause of damaging out planet's ecosystem. Or that they're gonna have to change their ways and give up fossil fuels and the like.

       So they will cling to their belief that this science is bogus. That the entire scientific community is out to get them. And they're getting ready to arm themselves to protect their way of life. I think that arming themselves with boats may be a necessary weapon of self-preservation.