Tax Reform Made Easy.

       Today class, we're going to discuss revenue neutral tax reform. So who would like to suggest how we can do this? Yes Douglas, what do you propose? Aha, Douglas suggests we eliminate corporate taxes. Now who thinks that's a good idea? Nobody? Well what if I pointed out that corporations would then bring more than one trillion dollars back along with thousands of jobs? Oh, so now everyone is in favor.
       Okay, now in order to keep revenue neutral we'll have to eliminate the state and local tax deductions and the homeowners interest loophole. Oops, so now nobody is in favor of  that change, not even Douglas. How about another suggestion. Tommy's hand is up, what is your suggestion? Tommy suggests we halt Farm subsidies and subsidies to the oil and gas industries. Who's in favor of that? Everyone but Betty is in favor. Why don't you like it Betty? Because the price for food, gas and oil will all go way up.
       That's right Betty. Now let's see who's still in favor of eliminating subsidies. Oh my goodness, nobody's in favor of eliminating these subsidies. Well class, is there any form of tax reform you would support? No? Well, are there any expenditures you all would be willing to cut? Julie, what would you like to cut? I'd like to cut all military spending. Jack would like to speak to that issue. Without any military to protect us, we'd be invaded by our enemies. Now even Julie wants to keep the military.
       What about food stamps, can't we cut them? Why yes, Frankie, and that would save each and every taxpayer ,hmm, let me see, I think it would save every taxpayer $1.17, but several hundred thousand people would starve. Oh, so now nobody's in favor of killing food stamps.
       Oh, Billy has his hand up. Yes Billy, what's your suggestion? I think we should cut funding for Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency. Why Billy, what an excellent idea. Then all we'd have to deal with is the individual states' governments? Uh oh, now nobody's in favor of Billy's idea. You see class? That's why we can't get any revenue neutral tax reform. Because everyone is in favor of any tax change that won't effect them.

Too Big To Get It.

       I suppose we should be grateful that the Fed and others are proposing stiffer regulations on Too Big To Fail banks. They are suggesting that these behemoths must hold more cash on hand to cover losses in the event of some problem in the future so that they won't need to be bailed out by taxpayers. The problem is that no matter how much cash they hold onto, it will never be enough to fully protect the taxpayer, because the less they can invest, the more they'll need to profit and the riskier investments they'll try.
       Why is it that our government can't see that the whole problem lies not in holding more funds, but in not being too big to fail in the first place. Now holding onto more funds is still a good idea to a point, but it will never supplant the need to break up these banks just like they realized they had to do it after the Great Depression. We did that back then and for half a century things went pretty smoothly.
       Then we foolishly believed these banks when they told us they were all grown up now and could manage to police their own ranks now. Well, it didn't take long for them to prove they were still too immature to handle their own oversight. And do you know what? They never will become mature enough to handle their own affairs. That's because if the candy is there on the table, they will always want it and many will grab for it.
       Ever greater profits is the irresistible candy they will always desire. That's just human nature. And these bankers don't and won't care where that profit comes from or who it hurts. Allowing traditional banking and the investment gamblers to be one in the same, will always challenge the will to work on behalf of the customer.
       WE need to have these two separate and distinct businesses to operate separately and distinctly. Without that separation there will always be the temptation to point the customer in the direction of the best interests of the bank and away from the best interests of the customer. So go ahead and require more cash on hand, but break up the monopolies.

What's Immigration?

       This last Friday my granddaughter asked me what Immigration was. Now you probably wonder why that came up. Well she had just finished a week of Bible School where the children "visited" five different countries. I'm sure the term came up during that last day of the classes. So how do you explain such a word that has been so misused to a nine year old?
       Well, I thought for a minute and then decided to tell her the most accurate and truthful answer I knew of. "Immigration" is moving." When you move from one country to another, you are immigrating to the new country and that's immigration. It's the same if you move from one part of the country to another. Or one state to another or town to town. It's all moving.
       What I didn't tell her is that some folks have tried to make that word into something evil or threatening. I didn't tell her that some people have learned to hate anyone who has moved to their country or area. Why is it that some people think that having new people move in is a bad thing? Actually it's not so much having new people move in as it is the kind of people that move in.
       If these newcomers are just like the folks that are already there, there doesn't seem to be much problem. The problem comes in when these newcomers are different from the folks already there. In other words the problem is more a case of racism. In fact it's all about racism. Of course the natives will be quick to tell you it's not racism, it's economics or it's dangerous or it's some other reason. But at the end of the day, it is racism.
       As far as economics is concerned, it's a proven fact that new citizens create jobs. As to dangerous, for every place where a terrorist can penetrate our borders, there are thousands of additional ways and places it could use that are easier. And there really isn't any other reason to fight immigration, except racism. That doesn't change the fact that racism isn't a strong emotion or that it persists. But my granddaughter is still young and doesn't need to know that some people are hateful toward outsiders, at least not just yet.

Give A Child a Checkbook Or Make Him Bank President.

       Did you know that the makers of the board game, Monopoly, have decided that having a "go to jail" feature is bad for the young mind? It's true. The latest thinking is that children who play Monopoly should not face the embarrassment of being forced to go to jail. Is that true? I mean, will children who get a go to jail card, do not pass go, do not collect $200, will be scarred for life?

       On the other hand, not having a jail threat in Monopoly does make it more lifelike. Now the children can just keep on passing GO and collecting their rewards without any threat of jail time whatsoever. Just like real life. At least real life if they go into banking where if you work for a large enough, or to put it more clearly, if they work for a too big to fail bank, they can collect their profits and stock options without fear of prosecution or jail time. No mention of not passing GO or not collecting their $200.

       Here's another thing that makes Monopoly just like major banking. The Daily Show, last night, explained the animals and cars and all those items are made of metal. And you just keep pushing them around the board and collecting your rewards. So now, Monopoly is more educational than ever. More realistic as well.

       We need more lifelike games for kids to play. More educational games for those young lives destined to go into high finance. How about a board game where some less fortunate children get to buy homes on places like Ventner Ave. And then the more advantaged who go to work at the big banks get to foreclose on those homes so they can buy homes on Park Place. Wouldn't that be a great game to prepare kids for life?

       How about a war games board game where you get to name the country you will send your army into to create a brand new Republic. In this game you can borrow the money to go to war and thereby put your country on a spiral into bankruptcy. Then you can move offshore with all the money you made building the weapons of war and the interest on the loans for the war. Educational games are great aren't they?

Politicians. Cant live With Them, Can't... I wonder?

       It used to be a prestigious event to be elected to public office. It used to mean that people thought you were a good person who would serve the needs of the people that elected you and even those who had voted against you. After all, we're all Americans and that's what Americans do. Americans aim to serve their fellow citizens in good times and in not so good times.
       If you got elected to office, it meant that you had the respect of your neighbors. Well, okay, sometimes it meant you bought your way into office, but even then people respected you for your ability to govern. Or at least they respected you for your ability to deliver the pork. But nobody ever respected anyone who couldn't act like an adult. A politician was expected to respect their spouse or at least keep it quiet if they didn't.
       But not any more. Now a lot of the problem is a result of 24/7 news cycles and the internet. A lot of the problem, but certainly not all of the problem. Now I'm sure you're familiar with the "swinging door policy" where politicians become lobbyists and lobbyists run for office, but nowadays we've got a "swinging politician policy". A swinging politician is one who works on the concept that anything goes and he wants in on the fun.
       It's sort of like saying I did not have sex with that woman, or What did you say the number for that hooker is or I'm going hiking on the Argentine branch of the Appalachian trail, or Let me send you a picture of my best qualities. It's like pretending you're Sen. Joe McCarthy and seeing communists or terrorists in every corner of the government. Or sitting in Congress and collecting farm subsidies and then complaining about people on food stamps.
       Anymore the only respect you see in Washington or around the state capitals is for the poor suckers who elected these politicians. And it's more like pity than respect. It's a wonder how we can find any decent, honest person to run for office. In fact looking at some of the recent arrivals in Congress and the state houses, I'm not sure we did find any.

Too Big To Be Too Big.

       Did you hear the one about the bank that cost you extra every time you buy a can of beer or soda? No they haven't invested in a beer distillery of a soda bottling company. It's not even because they're trying to eliminate glass or plastic bottles. In fact they don't even make aluminum cans. It's a lot sneakier than that.              And Congress is beginning to look into the situation. So, you know what that means. You don't? Well what it means to have Congress look into your operation is for you to get to go to Washington, maybe. As for the operation under investigation, it doesn't mean anything for at least a decade. That's assuming you provide the necessary campaign donations. That way there will be sufficient arguments back and forth to draw the investigation out for a considerable time.
       If any new laws or rules come out of the investigation, it'll be long after you're retired. As I've said before, by shuttling aluminum ingots between warehouses they, think Goldman Sacks and others, jack up the price of aluminum in America. But just raising the price of aluminum cans and cars is only part of the problem.
Here's another kicker. It also raises the cost of manufacturing any product with aluminum in it. So what? Well, it means that it puts American manufacturers at a disadvantage against foreign manufacturers. Therefore our cars are more expensive abroad and at home, product for product, foreign competitors have the edge on pricing because Goldman wants to make a little more. And they do. Make a little more, that is. They make multiple millions of $$$. And everybody pays. That's the beauty of this deal. The big banks make money on us even when we don't do business with them.

What's Wrong With The Minimum Wage?

       We're beginning to hear talk about raising the minimum wage. Up to as high as $12.50 per hour. Would you be interested in hearing the screams of pain and suffering emanating from business and industry? The idea of raising the minimum wage is a certain job killer. The economy will take a nose dive into deep depression from which the country will never be able to emerge.So go the horror stories.
       I did just a little bit of research and found out that way back in 1912 Massachusetts passed the first in the country minimum wage. America passed the first national minimum wage in 1938 at $0.25 per hour. Two bits, twenty five cents, that was the minimum wage. And do you know what? Business and Industry screamed bloody murder. The same in 1961 when it was raised yet again to $1.15 per hour. Do you remember the outcry in 2008 when it was raised to $7.25?
       The point is, business and industry will always weep alligator tears when anyone suggests a raise to the minimum wage. They will always assure anyone who will listen, that mandated raises in wages will deal a crippling blow to their bottom line, thus cruelly battering the working class. What they really mean but won't say is that it will mean a little less in their pockets. And that is blasphemy and criminal in their minds.
       The thing is, though, that in the final analysis, when all the dust settles, business and industry will continue to operate as before. They may have to raise their prices ever so slightly, but they'll do it and wait for the next time there's talk of raising the minimum wage so they can begin their campaign to cut off discussion on the topic.
       If you ask me, the talk shouldn't ever be about raising the minimum wage, but rather, on how much is needed to provide a living wage in America. I can absolutely guarantee you that the owners and management of business and industry all receive a living wage. Why shouldn't their employees receive a wage that will allow them to hold their heads high in the knowledge they can support their families without getting a handout from the government.

Guns and 007.

       There's a report in the New York Times today that there are over 30 states that have 007, License To Kill, Stand Your Ground laws. Most of the rest have been prodded into loosening their concealed-carry laws. There are now over 8 million Americans with concealed guns on their person. Eight million! Wanna be James Bonds.
       Just how many Americans need to carry concealed guns before all of America feels safe? Half of all Americans? Will that be enough? Will we all feel safe then? What if everyone had a concealed gun? Would we feel safe then? Or would we have to begin to carry two guns apiece? Must General Motors begin building armored personnel carriers for their next year's lineup of Chevrolets? Then maybe Chrysler might begin to offer the Family Sized Abrams tank.
       I suppose we could save the cost of maintaining a military that way, but would you really feel safe knowing that nutcase down the street actually has a Glock? Look, when states actually make it possible for professional killers and barroom brawlers to get away with murder by claiming they felt threatened, it doesn't make you safer. Not even the cops. It might make more sense to just abolish all laws pertaining to killing and turn the whole country over to vigilantism.
       Please don't get me wrong, if you genuinely and legitimately feel threatened, you ought to be able to carry a gun, provided you train with it regularly. Otherwise, leave it home. If you're out and feel threatened, do the smart thing and back away or throw your wallet at them and run. But having 8 million, or 180 or 380 million people with guns just isn't the answer. Take the money you would spend on a gun and give it to your local police force to train, equip and field more officers. Then demand the government start working together to develop plans to make us safer. We really do need to calm down.

What If You Are Willing To Work?

       By now I assume you've all heard about the Farm Bill and all the hullabaloo over the House's actions. Maybe not. Well here goes my understanding of the problems. First the Senate passed a Farm bill with bi-partisan support that, as tradition called for, included farm subsidies and SNAP or food stamps, but the food stamp portion of the bill was cut be about $20 billion. It went to the House where the majority decided to split the two parts and passed a Farm Bill that did not include the food stamp portion of the bill.
       Then the house majority increased farm subsidies in one of the most fraud-ridden programs in the government. So now the House bill, without food stamps, is nearly as costly as the Senate bill which includes food stamps. When there was an uproar in the House by the minority over no food stamps, Cong. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee quoted the New Testament "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." Of course everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Only, Rep. Fincher has received $$$ millions over the years in farm subsidies and will receive even more if the House's version were to become law.
       But what about those food stamps? What is the House's version of that look like? It looks like a completely blank page. That's because the majority says it'll take up food stamps at a later date. Which is a lot like saying "when hell freezes over." There are far too many Congressmen in the House who are completely opposed to food stamps for any meaningful legislation on that subject to take place.
       So exactly what should happen next? Well normally representatives of the two houses of Congress would meet in conference to work out a compromise. The only problem is that the two bills are nowhere near being compatible. That's because one includes a major portion of the bill that the other does not address at all. I think the House would need to pass a separate bill of food stamps. Then all three bills could be negotiated. The chances of that happening are next to nothing. I suspect there will have to be an extension of the current law, again, to allow time for reasonable negotiating. But they couldn't accomplish anything during the first extension. Who thinks they can be successful in the next?

Tragedy Strikes Man, Cow.

       Of all the important news that was reported in our newspapers today there is one article in particular that seems unfinished. It tells of an unusual death, but doesn't explain what led to that death. It seems that far to the south, on another continent, a man was killed by a cow that fell through his roof and landed on the man, killing him.
       There is no mention as to whether the cow has been arrested or if it was an accident. The item did not mention how the cow happened to fall through the roof onto the poor man but missed the wife. How is the legal system of Brazil, where the death occurred, to handle such an event as this? A police officer in Caratinga explained the man died of internal bleeding. I'm not surprised.
       I am surprised that the investigation didn't delve deeper into this mystery. Or if it did, then why didn't the news article explain this situation? How did the cow come to be on the roof in the first place? Was there a bovine ladder? Or was the cow a skydiver? Why do you suppose a cow would come to be on that roof? Apparently the roof was made of asbestos. Who would build a roof out of a known carcinogen? Didn't this man realize that roof could kill him?
       Building codes are there for a reason. A one ton cow on an asbestos roof. That's a recipe for disaster. This is a story that should have been milked for all it was worth. I should also report that the news article did not mention the condition of the cow. If this was an accident, wouldn't you think that information should have been a part of the article? The man's name was Joao Maria DeSouza.  Wouldn't you think the cow was entitled to have it's name mentioned? I guess that's a moot question now. Is there a cover-up here? I would think the police might be sweeping the barn for clues.
       Let this be a lesson to all people with low roofs or tall cows. Don't feed the cows bird seed. Now, I've heard of the cow that jumped over the moon, but I always thought that was a soft landing. Not like this. Mothers don't let your younguns grow up to sleep under the milking parlor.

Russian Choppers For Afghanistan.

       There's a news flash of sorts in the Washington Post today that tells us the U.S. military is buying Russian helicopters for Afghanistan. It also states that Congress is furious about it. How could this Administration do such an unthinkable thing as this. It's just plain stupid incompetence. Shouldn't we be selling them American helicopters in order to cement our future relationship with Afghanistan?
       Well, maybe yes and maybe no. On the one hand selling American made choppers to Afghanistan would be good for business and make Americans proud. But on the other hand, as one commenter suggests, once were out of there, the Taliban will be back in. And fairly quickly. So who believes the Taliban are our friends, raise your hand?
       On the other hand, who thinks that, once back in power, the Taliban will be more than happy to sell all the technology to Russia or China or Iran or anybody else who is willing to pay for it, raise your hand? Ya see, the Afghan people have no respect for the Karsai regime. They'd prefer almost anything to him, even the Taliban, even almost any government but Karsai. So the chance of him remaining in power after we're gone is rather slim.
       As for us buying those Russian choppers for Afghanistan, it just might be the act of a very shrewd and far thinking Administration. So at the risk of disappointing all those Obama haters, and even if it happened inadvertently, it was a great idea. And now, even if we have that technology already, we'll be able to have one to study closely. Too bad we couldn't  have arranged to buy some Chinese choppers instead. On the other hand, we might have found out the Chinese choppers are just our choppers assembled by China.
       Any way you slice it, whatever we leave behind or buy for Afghanistan, it's gonna wind up being available to anybody with the dime to buy it. So maybe Congress should settle down. Unless it's a ruse to assure the Axis Of Evil countries we're dumber than we look. And in the case of Congress, I think we can all be assured, they are.

The Return Of Great Paying Jobs

       I think everybody understands that the Great Recession hurt the poor and middle class the most. And the recovery has benefited the wealthy far more than the rest of us. Now I've got a solution to that situation. My plan can raise the income of the poor and middle class and put most people back to work. All those great paying factory jobs will return. It will even allow the wealthy to continue to prosper.
       So what's this magic formula that will accomplish this feat? Well let me explain, but first a little history. Thirty or forty years ago, CEOs got paid about twenty times what their average employees made. Now-a-days they make over 200 times as much and many make far more than that. In order to justify these fantastic paydays, corporations have moved jobs to China, Bangladesh and a variety of other locations. Then they started moving, at least on paper, their headquarters offshore.
       So let's do a couple of things. Let's put a ceiling on the amount execs can earn over the average employee, say fifty times the average. How will that help? When a CEO realizes his pay will be determined by how much his company is paying some Bangladeshi slave laborer, he's gonna want to move that operation back to a higher paying America, or leave America all together.
       Secondly, eliminate the corporate tax completely. Then add a tax on the profits on every single product or service at point of sale. In other words, any corporation, no matter whether American, international or foreign, would have to pay a tax on the profits of any product sold in America. It would put all our corporations on a level playing field with any outside company. Maybe better because other countries do charge an income tax on their corporations. We'd just have to make sure companies couldn't hide their actual profits from our IRS.
       Remember, America is the largest and wealthiest marketplace in the world. No company is going to turn their backs on that market for long. And if they do, there'll be lots of competitors ready to take their place. The only problem with my plan is that all the world's CEOs will be against the idea. Because it means their income will be lowered. So they'll lobby Congress unto death. And no Senator or Congressman will be able to withstand the onslaught of all that free money.

Health, Immigration and Burger King Menus

       Have you read the Affordable Care Act? That's the official name for Obamacare. I've heard lots of people claim it's ridiculously long.  So I decided to check it out. Actually I had just read an article about the new Immigration bill that has passed the Senate. Anyway, Fact Check informed me that there are various printings of the ACA of differing lengths, but the copy they referred me to was 974 pages long.
       How do you feel about that? It's awfully long and I didn't read it either.  But if you think that's an exorbitant number, then consider that Immigration bill. It's 1099 pages long. Of course the ACA covers all the medical problems Americans can face, who pays how much and all that. The Immigration bill covers the who, how and when along with border security. Still, 974 and 1099 pages sounds like a lot.
       At least it does until you consider that tons of lawyers, accountants and insurance companies and a host of other interested parties will pour over both these measures looking for the loopholes that will allow them to profit from these laws and bills. When you consider that, you may well decide that the 974 and 1099 pages aren't nearly enough. On the other hand, some folks think the difference, 125 pages, should be sufficient  to cover both with enough words left over to print a Burger King's menu.
       Another thing to consider is that maybe you shouldn't find fault with the one and approve of the other because of their length. But I guess the real point is that we wouldn't need all this wording if we all didn't want so many items covered and so many interests protected. We could have said "Everybody is covered for everything", and "Everybody is welcome." That just isn't what happened.

State Secrets.

       What's your take on Edward Snowden, the guy who released so much secret information from the NSA? It turns out he lined up some reporters before he applied for a job with Booz Allen and started working as a troubleshooter in the computer world of the NSA. It even looks like Wikileaks and Julian Assange were involved.
       Unlike PFC Bradley Manning, who was already in a position to find the items he would eventually leak, Snowden seems to have been getting his ducks in a row first. The question I have to ask is whether or not these guys are acting as true whistle blowers or just acting on hopes of financial gain? But perhaps even more important is whether these folks are the appropriate purveyors of national secrets and is it even appropriate to release that information at all?
       It's been stated that the unscheduled release of this information has endangered the lives of people in the field. And that it has set back our country's ability to protect us. What if those statements are true. Are Snowden and Manning still whistle blowers deserving of being protected under the law? Or are they truly traitors deserving of prison?
       I've asked myself these questions and I've figured out that I'm not nearly well enough informed to make that decision. Just who is qualified to release this kind of information? Look, I think there's tons of information the government holds as  national secrets that should be released. In many cases, I'll bet the reason to withhold some of this information is long past relevance.
       On the other hand, there certainly is information that must be held as secret. So who is or are the appropriate people or person to make those decisions?  Is a thirty year old computer nut who is a dropout the right person to reveal this information? Was adequate advance warning given to protect people's lives? How will this affect our country's ability to protect us be affected? Did Ed or Brad consider any of these questions first?

Profiling, Voter ID And Background Checks

       Well, sure enough the Supreme Court did it to us again. In their decision on the Voter's Rights Act, they stripped out section 5. Less than two hours later, Texas instituted it's strongest in the nation voter ID law. Two days later it was challenged in court. Many other states are instituting all sorts of voter ID laws and making changes to the ways people can vote.
       What I don't get is why people feel it's perfectly okay to require IDs to vote, but still won't accept the idea of requiring a background check to buy a gun. And they feel even worse about the idea of any kind of registration to buy a gun, yet think nothing of requiring registration to vote. The thing is though, nobody ever got killed by a vote while many, many have been killed by guns.
       Oh, I know, guns don't kill people, people kill people. So do grizzly bears and rattle snakes and they don't use guns. But people without guns don't kill many people. People with guns do kill lots of people. A pointed finger doesn't kill, but a pointed gun can.
       Now don't get me wrong, I agree that voter ID is a good idea. It will eliminate a few cases of the rare voter fraud. Although it still won't save lives, but background checks to buy guns won't hurt anyone and will save lives. My only problem with Voter ID laws is that far too many are designed to be hard and costly on poor people to obtain these IDs.
       The other game the Supreme Court Justices opened up is for states and districts to play fast and loose with poling places and times in order to make voting more difficult for some people. If you can't take time off from work without it costing you pay or your job, but absentee voting is made more difficult, or if you always voted on a Sunday after church but now you're not allowed to, that's profiling and the authorities know it. That's why they do it.

Shame On Shame.

       Hey, our favorite U.S. Senate is trying it's best to open up the wild west financial markets again.  In the "old West" there were some towns where the anything goes atmosphere prevailed. The Senate is intent on getting back to these good ole days. You know, the days that brought us the Great Recession and other fun in the sun activities.
       Now before you accuse me of being partisan on this issue, let me assure you this is not a partisan event. Sponsors of this new bill are Republican and Democrat.The idea is to put all of the Dodd Frank law on hold while they turn it all over to the White House where it will undoubtedly languish. That's why they chose this approach. In doing so, it will mean that for all intents and purposes there would be no regulation on the banking and investing industries at all.
       Of course, banks and Wall Street would love that kind of situation to exist. It would mean they could go right back to the bad ideas they came up with to make money that got us into trouble in the first place. Now you may think they've learned their lesson and wouldn't do those same things over again. You may think that, but think about this; the Great Recession really didn't cost these bozos anything at all. Those that got into trouble got bailed out and nobody went to jail. At least nobody in management which is all they're concerned about.
       After all, as you may remember, it was decided that too big to fail banks were bailed out and officers of too big to fail institutions were too important to prosecute. That was one decision I couldn't understand at all. What it means is that the folks who can do the most damage and hurt to our people and country are too important to punish. How is that a deterrent? How will that stop these bozos from doing it to us again? Do you remember the old saying; Do me once, shame on you. Do to me twice, shame on me. Well, shame on the Senate. Both times.

Folks Do Need To Eat.

       Allow me to present two pictures to you. First there is India and in the second frame we have America. The Indian Cabinet just voted, in an executive order, to establish a legal right to food for everyone and will create the world's largest food subsidy system for the poor. Meanwhile in America, Congressional forces continue to try to cut Food Stamps for the poor and near poor.
       Just think, in this day and age, a country that was always considered somewhat backwards and very unfair to it's lower classes, is realizing the rights of it's poor, while America, land of the free, a Christian nation in the minds of those who would deny food safety, is denying the same rights. How Christianly is that? I guess in America you're free to eat anything you can afford, but you're not free to get any help if you can't afford the food your family needs.
       India is right. Everyone should be provided with the right to food. If you can't afford proper nutrition, it should be provided to you. America is wrong. When you try to take away the means of providing nutrition to a family, that act flies in the face of humanity. A country that refuses the needs of it's poor, cries out for change.
       What I don't understand is why so many people in conservative states, where the most Food Stamp
Recipients live, are against the very services they depend on. Why do you suppose a person who needs and receives the help would support anyone who advocates to end that help?
       What's needed is not necessarily more help, but more people to stand up for the needs of their fellow inhabitants of America and here on earth.

Just What Is Leadership Anyway?

       On this July forth, I just finished reading an article in the N.Y. Times about how some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence suffered considerable loss of property, health and life. There were 56 men who signed that document and nearly all were personally involved in the Revolution in one way or another.
Nearly all were wealthy men. A dozen or so were involved to their great misfortune. Although I doubt they regretted their actions.
       Then you have to ask yourselves if our leaders of today would do likewise. The number of our leaders today who actually wore the uniform of our country as compared with those of the Revolution is dismal. To be sure, there was substantial discourse and disagreement before a Declaration of Independence would be signed. In the end they came to agreement and then stood by that agreement.
       What I find particularly ugly today is how even after agreement is reached, laws are passed, even then, there is far too much backstabbing and arguments against laws rather than proposals to amend. Take the Affordable Care Act. Whether or not you agree with Obamacare, it's the law. If you don't like it, change it. To waste the time of Congress 37 times in vain efforts to repeal it is nothing short of an act of lunacy.
       I admit I haven't read the Act. I don't know completely what it says, I can't believe any of these folks who keep voting for repeal have any clear understanding of what it does or does not do. Why would you vote to disassemble something without knowing what harm you might do? But that's just one example.
       This country's current leaders are not up to the job of leading us. Top leadership in both parties in Congress and the Administration seem to lack that greatness we saw in our founding fathers. I'm convinced it has to do with a willingness to put personal service ahead of personal gain. Today we see a desire for personal gain ahead of personal service. To bad. For us.

It's Called Lip Service.

       Here in America, each of us is represented in at least nine separate but related branches of government. We have a local governmental seat, and most often, a school board, a county government, a state legislature, Governor and State Supreme Court. Then we have the U.S. Congress, President and Supreme Court. I suppose we could also include the various levels of courts, but let's try to keep the number manageable.
       The point is we're heavily represented. The problem is, we're not necessarily fairly of intelligently represented. Locally, we're often represented by the same faces for multiple terms or until somebody retires or goes to jail. When you get to the state level, the representation is more closely related to a particular party and how well it can convince the public it's saving you money while costing you more money.
       When you get to Washington, the Party system is in full swing. Neither party will do anything that can remotely appear to help the other party. This carries through all three branches of government. The good part of this system is that it effectively stops any legislation that is not well thought out. The bad part of this system is that it effectively stops any legislation that is well thought out.
       In other words, the current system stops all legislation, well thought out or not. Of course there are exceptions to this rule. Post offices still get named, we still pay taxes, Presidents still enjoy Camp David and gets free rent, Congressmen still take junkets, bureaucrats still enjoy lavish conferences, the Army still drills, the Air Force still flies and the Navy still sails.
       It wasn't always like this. There was a time when someone else was the most important person in the country. Now-a-days all the above employees of the people get pretty much whatever they need or want. But in the foggy distance of time past, the citizen was considered the most important person. Oh, they still claim we are but in actual fact, we're only the ones who extend the party for those employed by us.