To Hear Them Talk, You'd Think We're Too Puny.

       Have ya heard the outcry over the  Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel's proposed defense budget? We're throwing ourselves on the mercy of all the evil that has ever existed in the universe. Actually we'd go from a military that costs as much as the next 13 countries combined, to a cheapskate military equal only to the next ten countries combined.
       We're just coming out of a military fighting two wars at the same time while attending to numerous small brushfires. For the first time in a decade we only have one war going on and we're trying to extricate ourselves from that one. But the thinking seems to be that we need the same military to fight no wars. If we're gonna do that then shouldn't we require that all American corporations do the same? Full employment. Let the corporations pay employees to sit in waiting for the next big economic expansion.
       Now I realize there's more at stake with the military than any single corporation, but I have to wonder how we can afford to keep a 590,000 man army and all those extra ships and planes and on and on? America just doesn't have the same income we had a decade ago. Washington can't raise taxes and it has less income. Something has to go. Of course entitlements is the answer. Except that it isn't an answer at all.
       Think about it. If you're dependent on help to survive because you can't find a job for which you have the skills or training and are therefore forced to work at minimum wage, how in the world will you feed and house your family? You want to stop the safety net programs? Create the jobs first. Then you won't have a problem eliminating the safety net. Until then we need a smaller more mobile defense. One we can afford. That shouldn't be a problem with all the heavily armed Americans we have.

At Last, An End To The Bickering.

       I think I've hit on the perfect solution to all the vitriol, animosity, gridlock, flintlock and every other problem facing America today. Well, all except global warming, clean water and air, education, election financing, voter IDs, immigration, gun control, Senate filibusters and the like. So I guess my solution is only semi-perfect in that it doesn't solve all the problems of the world. We'll still have to argue over things like foreign policy.
       But we can eliminate the anger over the poor. My suggestion is for the federal government to end all entitlements,  period. Now hear me out on this until I'm finished. By ending entitlements we could reduce nearly everyone's taxes. But at the same time the government should create a new tax called the FIRST FRUITS TAX. Every single person, corporation, PAC, Super PAC, Social organization, anyone or entity that receives any form of income, that means any monetary exchange, must pay a 10% First Fruits tax. The only exception to this tax is if you donate that same 10% of your gross profits or income to the poor.
       Now let's be clear about this, local Museums of the Baked Potato or Service clubs for the good of a certain politician or political outlook or any similar charity do not count toward this exemption. It must be strictly for the poor. Otherwise you must pay this tax to the government which will then disperse this tax revenue to the poor. With this new tax, which is offset by the elimination of all the safety net programs, we stop the government from subsidizing all the welfare queens. This way the Tea party should be satisfied, the Christian Right should be satisfied, in general, conservatives will be satisfied and liberals will surely be satisfied as well.
       Now, to be sure there will be some few who will not be satisfied. Mostly those who do not believe in giving to the poor or paying taxes. And while these make up a substantial minority they, none the less, firmly believe in themselves first, last, and always.
       Who knows, maybe some similar solutions can be instituted to eliminate the rest of the mess that is Washington. Then all that would be left to solve are the political parties. Yeah, I know, that may the toughest.
      

We Worry About The Wrong Things.

       To add to my last post, this last January was the forth warmest January on record, for the world. So if you've suffered through a cold snowy winter so far, you're not experiencing the normal winter for 2014. The normal 2014 winter is much warmer and much dryer. In fact in the west, as in California west, it's been much dryer for some considerable time. And that spells trouble for most Americans and our diets. No I don't mean weight loss, although it wouldn't hurt for me to lose some.
       What I don't understand is why we're not working feverishly to mitigate the problems associated with global warming and climate change caused at least in part by human activity. Even if you're a climate change denier, it's pretty hard to deny the drought California is suffering through. After all, it's not as though it doesn't affect the rest of us. If you have a habit of eating on any regular basis, you might want to consider what it will mean if we can't depend on California for a substantial portion of the food we consume.
       Why doesn't it make sense to at least begin to talk about what we can and should do to offset the damage to this huge supply of food for America? Instead we keep thinking about how we can keep some folks from voting, how much proof of residency is needed to vote, who should or should not get married, who should or should not get a helping hand from a government safety-net, who can come into America and from where, how many guns do we need to be safe, how and when the world happened or how long it's okay to be unemployed.
        I don't mean to be picky, but shouldn't we be thinking more about what's best for all of us and less about what's a hot button issue for ourselves. I mean, isn't that a selfish way to think? I'd like to believe Americans are a people who take care of our own and welcome newcomers with open arms. I'd like to, but lately it's hard to believe that. You'd think that food would be something we could all agree we want to remain available to all of us.

What An Old Fashioned Winter Is All About.

       Well, how do you like winter so far? You do realize this is what real winter is like, don't you? Not that spring/winter/spring weather we've come to expect and enjoy. You know, where the temperatures hover well above freezing most of the time with a few cold snaps thrown in and a snow storm or two for good measure that we learned to call winter. Those were the good semi-old days.
       But this year we're back to an old-fashioned winter where the snow on the ground sticks around with no grass showing through, until, well probably until mid spring. That's because the temperatures continue to remain below freezing nearly all the time. We've even had some sub zero weather that's lasted for days on end. Now this is what I call winter. I don't particularly like it, but at least it is winter. No confusing it with autumn or spring. It's winter.
       Of course, even though it is winter, you can hear the choruses and chirpings of the climate change deniers, claiming variously that; climate change ended two dozen years ago, or there is no climate change, or because of this winter it's over now. Ya see, whatever the weather is or was like here in America  is the determining factor of the existence of climate change for the world. So if the southern hemisphere is experiencing record heat waves, it has no baring on the climate world wide.
       But climate change discussions aside, this is winter, and if you're not up to it, that's your problem, because mother nature's gonna do what mother nature's gonna do. It's the kind of winter when you begin to ponder the advisability of studded snow tires. Or maybe even tire chains. I'll bet that half the drivers in America have never even heard of tire chains. Then there's tow chains, jumper cables and bags of salt or sand in the trunk. These are the musings of old time rear wheel drivers and the debate issues of those same drivers. What single item from the above list is most important and comforting? Ahh yes, getting to work or school, uphill both ways.
      
      

Putting On Airs.

       I just got an email from one of my Senators. Actually he's not necessarily my Senator, but he does represent Pennsylvania as one of its Senators. Anyway, in the newsy post he tells about how he stands up for justice, as though anyone would admit to standing against justice who is running to keep his job. But he goes on to tell how he has "spoken on the floor of the Senate." He even had a picture of himself holding up a poster sized photo of a man in uniform.
       Would you like to guess how many Senators were in the background, sitting at their assigned seats? Well except for the young woman helping to hold up the poster, there was a total of zero members present in that photo. Now, I'm sure there were at least one or two present, probably waiting their turn to speak. When you see a Senator speaking on some subject not up for a vote and even many that are, there usually are very few members present. They have more important things to do.
       The Senate is billed as the most important deliberative body in the world. Well, sometimes that's true, but most of the time they're off meeting with lobbyists and fundraisers. Sometimes they manage to squeeze time in for a hearing or two, especially if the media is present. Don't get me wrong, I think the Senate is important and Senators are required to make hard decisions. Decisions that will determine whether or not they will get the funding they need to get reelected.
       It's just that when you hear one mention how he or she spoke on the floor of the Senate about this or that of interest only to his constituents, you can be fairly certain he was there all alone. Hey, as a visitor to Washington being shown the Senate Chamber when it is not in use, I could speak in that Chamber. Like to ask a question or something.

Ahh! To Export Or Not To Export., That's The Question.

       Ya want to hear a good joke? Well, U.S. oil refiners and U.S. oil producers are arguing over which should be exporting the oil. The producers claim that if they export oil, the world prices will come down bringing domestic prices down. Oil refiners claim it will cut them out and cost the American consumer more at the pump. It's unusual for these industry partners to be squabbling.
       So what should the federal government do? Allow for exporting crude oil or increase exports of gas and diesel? My guess is that either way, domestic prices will rise. The industry already has that figured out. They're not fighting each other that hard yet. What it's about is who gets to make the bigger profits and who doesn't. That was easy to figure out.
       But here's the part I don't get. If we have so much extra oil that we need to start exporting even more than we do now, why do we need to build a pipeline from Canada to Texas to pump, dirtier than you can imagine, tar sands oil, which will then be exported? Is this a national strategy that will help America? It sounds more like a corporate grab for cash.
       Now I'm not suggesting that corporations shouldn't grab for cash. After all, that's what they were designed to do. But what's in it for America? It looks to me like the only thing America can get out of it is the possibility of mishaps, spills, toxic waste and headaches. The Canadian company that wants the pipeline has threatened to build one, in Canada, to the west coast of Canada. Maybe that's what they should do. It would be one less problem for America. I just don't see a need for America to be involved. If our oil needs are too great to do without this extremely dirty Canadian oil, which will be exported anyway, why don't we stop all exports and use our own oil? It sounds like we'd be able to decrease our dependence on foreign oil even more, or maybe all together. And that includes not exporting the north slope oil from Alaska.
       The idea wouldn't harm those we've been exporting to, because they could just start buying what we stopped buying. The same amount of oil would be changing hands. Why can't our government see this? Now I realize there's more to it than this, but it really looks like we're being had. It's a joke.

Yes We Have No Bananas.

       Which would you rather have, income equality or opportunity equality? In order to have income equality the government would have to tax the wealthy very heavily and pass it on to those less fortunate. To have opportunity equality, government would still have to tax the wealthy in order to make the less fortunate have a better opportunity to become successful.
       Gov. Chris Christy made that very point the other day. Now, I'm no particular fan of his, but I have to agree that income equality could only be mediocre at best. But to level the opportunity field would require more finesse although it would allow a whole lot more people to prosper enough to help those who do not. The thing is, his party has not done any such thing.
       What's needed most for opportunity equality is to raise the level of education in America and eliminate the high costs of that education. It would require the expansion of SNAP (food stamps) and all nutritional help. Then, how do you arrange for poor children to have the advantages that only the rich currently enjoy, like home environments that foster practices like reading, exposure to the arts, and the myriad other perks wealthy children enjoy.
        But with all its challenges, opportunity equality is the best our country can do for all its citizens. The rich will still have the edge but everyone would be able to exercise their best attributes and profit from their best efforts. That's not true now. A poor child has little chance to receive the better education or put their better ideas to the test in  the marketplace. There's just too much inequality.
       Wouldn't it be nice if Democrats were to adopt this strategy?" Wouldn't it be nice if Republicans were adopt this strategy? Wouldn't it be nice if they actually wanted to accomplish these goals and were willing to make the hard choices to make these accomplishments possible? That's the trouble with dreamers. They actually thinks such accomplishments are possible in these times. But if we don't, we'll wind up a banana republic without bananas.

It Couldn't Happen To More Deserving Folks.

       How are you on dark humor? It should be sad to hear of people dying, even folks who are of a disliked set of people. But sometimes it is somewhat funny too. Like this story in the New York Times today. It seems that a group of students and the teacher at an academy of the Islamic Republic of Iraq and Syria were killed. What happened is the teacher was showing the class how to work a bomb that is strapped to you. Unfortunately, or you may think fortunately, the belt was loaded with explosives instead of a dummy belt. So when the teacher pressed the button to show the class how to do it, he did it. That is to say, he blew them all up including himself.
       Now like I said, it's not nice to wish evil toward anybody. But if you're gonna wish evil toward anybody, this might have been the group you'd most like to wish that evil toward. But here's the thing, this academy was a bit north of Baghdad. It was somewhat known to be a school for terrorists. Right there. Right where they had easy access to the folks they planned to blow up.
       So how did the neighbors take the news? One person called a friend with the news and was described as being as happy as though it were his wedding day. Presumably he enjoyed his wedding day. Now I admit I shant attend the funerals. I do wonder, though, do these students get the 20 or so virgins promised them? What about any women in the class? Do they get 20 male virgins? What about the teacher? Maybe he'll be forced to be one of the virgins.
       Ya see how dark humor goes? It can take hold of you and force you to have dark thoughts. But I don't think dark humor gets you any virgins. Unless they have horns and tails. And one of them just possibly was a teacher in his past life. So remember, if you enjoy some dark humor, you'd best ask for a little forgiveness. You probably needed it anyway.

If We All Own It, Why Aren't We Getting Paid For It?

        Don't taxes make you just mad as all get out? Even if you admit that without taxes, we'd all be in very bad straits, we still hate to think about taxes. So any source that helps to lower your taxes makes you a happy camper, even if you don't like the out-of-doors. Who wouldn't jump for joy to save a dime in taxes. You might even agree to vote for someone just because they promise to keep your taxes low and better yet to lower them even more.
       So that's why Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has put $225 million from the Tobacco Settlement Fund into his budget. Except he's using it to pay towards the State School Employee Retirement System. Now in case you don't remember, the Tobacco Settlement Fund came about because the tobacco industry got sued some years back and the fund was set up to pay for a variety of health-related and biotech programs.
       So the question is; Do Pa. Governor Corbett and, I'm sure, other states have the right to use these funds for purposes other than intended? I don't know about legally, but it can't possibly be morally appropriate. So even if it helps to keep your taxes a little lower, it's not doing the job for which it was intended. And this is just one example of  an election year budget line item. Are there others? Just read the newspapers to get a little in-depth reporting that TV doesn't have time to do.
       This information came from a Scranton Times editorial by Robert Swift in Harrisburg. And in the meantime the state continues to lose money year after year because Mr. Corbett refuses to tax the gas industry with a severance tax. His per-well flat tax misses by a mile because the wells continue to produce for many years. And remember that Pennsylvania is the only state in the country that doesn't tax the industry in this way. Why is it we're so dumb? Say, isn't Corbett running for office again this year? Ya know, that gas is owned by the state as well as the land owner.

Used-To-Haves And Never-Hads.

       I just read an article in the Huffington Post that explained something I'd been trying to understand for some time. The article is "I'm a member of the American Used-To-Haves." It's about a woman who lost a good corporate job and has continued to slide into poverty. But the point she really covered was that she "had never been poor. Didn't know how to be poor." It's relatively easy to be rich. You can buy what you want and pay for it in cash if need be. Whether it's a decent home, car, nice clothes, dinner out, or basic needs.
       But to be poor or become poor is a whole different matter. And to become poor is even harder to survive. If you were born poor, you grow up knowing you can't have what others have, but if you lost your job during the Great Recession and before that in the Great Industrial Flight, you've got to learn how to be poor. If you were earning a decent income but now you're trying to survive on little or nothing, it's a difficult transition.
       Then to make matters worse, the folks who could have helped or might yet, aren't likely to do so because they don't understand what it's like to become poor. The wealthy have no concept of what life would be like. To not being able to get a good paying job. No matter how hard a rich man may try, he can't understand what it's like to lose your dignity, your ability to provide for your family.
       Politicians who could provide for the poor, even friendly politicians just don't get it. Washington has bigger fish to fry. What with deficits, debt, foreign policy, subsidies, political appointments, and most importantly raising funds for elections, they don't understand the need for food, shelter and a job. If you spend most of your time considering multi million or multi billion dollar legislation, how do you relate to the difference between $15,000 and $30,000. They see the numbers, but they don't mean anything to someone who's making six figures and looking to vastly increasing that amount. It's like looking through a fog. You really can't quite make out the problem. And most don't even try.

Forget Big Brother, Try Bigger Oil & Gas.

       In Pennsylvania, the courts now seem to have control over the souls of the people. So just you watch out you churches. You no longer have a say over your parishioner's souls. That's right, a judge,  Judge Kenneth Seamans, county judge in Susquehanna county, has ordered an injunction against a woman in favor of Cabot Oil and Gas. No trespassing on any of the lands they own or lease. The only reason given, unofficially, is that she is trespassing on the souls of the people of the region.
       Now I have to admit I'm conflicted about Fracking, the procedure used to extract gas or oil from shale , far beneath the surface. On the one hand I believe it's a potentially dangerous process that has already done harm around the country, but on the other hand natural gas is a vast improvement over coal in the production of energy when it comes to the environment.
       But poor Ms. Scroggins is now barred from going to the local hospital, the stores she shops at, the VFW, the local animal shelter where she adopted her pet dog, and any of the more that 200,000 acres of land (about 312 sq. miles) they lease. And to top that off, Cabot doesn't even have to show Scroggins what properties she was barred from. She's got to find that out for herself.
       I think it's important to state that Ms. Scroggins, 63, has never been arrested and nothing she has done "was illegal or presented a public danger." And while Cabot wouldn't speak to The Guardian, a consultant did speak and made the claim about her trespassing on the souls of the people. So now 40% of Susquehanna County, Pa. is off limits to Ms. Scroggins.
       Ms. Scroggins was informed of the hearing three days before it took place. She was unable to hire a lawyer in time for the hearing, but Cabot had four attorneys, nine witnesses, company employees and the security firm they hired. They weren't even required to prove that the leases they hold give them the right to keep her off those properties. If I owned a farm and had signed a drilling lease, would Cabot have the right to say who I can invite to my daughters birthday party? I think overreach is not a description I would disagree with. Does a judge have a responsibility to protect the rights of all the citizens that come before him? Even those with unpopular opinions? If he doesn't, it seems to me he should.