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.

Half Is Not Better Than Nothing At All.

       Ya know, the more I think about the Supreme Court's decision in the Voter Rights act, the more I've come to believe they were half right. Now, I'm not suggesting that being half right is a good outcome. I don't think I'd be proud to state I was half right on an important issue that affected so many people so negatively. They might as well have been all wrong as being half right.
       Here's the thing. I think they're right when they said this is not the 1960s. It isn't. They pointed out that our country is far less racial and is discriminatory far less than they were back then. All that's true. Even their idea that Congress should fix the problem is true. That the Congress should rewrite the voter rights act to reflect the America of 2013, is a true statement.
       Where the Supreme Court is incorrect is in saying that the Congress should fix the problem. They could just as well have suggested that Peter Pan should swoop down and fix the problem. Or maybe Vladimir Putin has a great idea on how to fix the problem. Or maybe Pres. Morsi of Egypt. He looks like he could use a change of address. How about a born again Baby Face Nelson.
       The thing is, Congress is incapable of passing meaningful legislation on this issue. And what's worse, the Supreme Court's Justices knew very well Congress couldn't possibly do it under current circumstances. Heck, the Congress can't do anything unless they are under extreme pressure. What the court should have done is say we are going to strip out section 5 of the law as soon as Congress can pass a revised Voter Rights law.
       A new law that reflects the current attempts of voter suppression. That would include every state that has tried to pass or has actually passed any form of voter suppression law including, but not limited to, photo voter IDs that require costs of getting such an ID or costs to acquire proof for such ID. Ya see, that's where the Supreme Court Justices screwed up.

You can't compare Obamacare With The NRA.

       Well, whatta ya think. The National Football League, the NFL, has backed down on supporting the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. It seems the NFL was in talks to provide support in getting people to enroll. It's not unusual for the NFL to support health issues. So it seemed like a good fit. M y guess is that they would have done it if it weren't for one little mistake.
       Kathleen Sibelius, HHS Secretary was so happy that she prematurely announced the NFLs participation, thinking it would provide the impetus to other pro sports organizations to participate. Big mistake. As soon as Republicans got wind of the possibility that anyone would help Democrats promote the law of the land, they jumped on the NFL like a pack of scorpions. Are groups of scorpions called packs? I didn't even know that scorpions grouped up. The Republicans jumped on the NFL like a pack of wolves. I know they pack up.
       Not only did they jump all over the NFL, but they warned all other sports not to engage with anyone involved with such a controversial undertaking. On the other hand, the Republicans recently partnered up with the NRA to support and sponsor a NASCAR race. Does anyone think the NRA isn't controversial? So why is it that it's in bad taste for organized sports to support a controversial Democratic undertaking, but it's not in bad taste for NASCAR to huddle up with the NRA? I suppose it has to do with which Party is involved with which party.
       Or maybe it has more to do with which Party whines the most about the other Party's involvement with which party. Maybe if the Democrats whined louder and longer and sent more letters of disapproval to certain sports, then maybe the spikes would be on the other shoe. Then maybe the Democrats would look like whiners and obstructionists instead of the Republicans for a change.
       Just as a point of interest, of all the developed countries in the world, America stands alone in not having universal healthcare. America also holds a record of having the most expensive healthcare per capita of all those countries. And the Republicans stand alone as the only party standing in the way of implementing such humane healthcare. Which is parallel to the NRA and gun safety.

Immigration To Self Deportation.

       Why is it that the Senate struggled so mightily to pass an immigration bill? And why is it the House will struggle even more so and will very likely fail to pass anything worthy of honest consideration, but struggle none the less? I mean, come on, this is the easy stuff. They should be able to figure this out on the ride to work in the morning.
       If our legislators can't get this done in a reasonable period of time, like two weeks, how will they ever be able to figure out the more complicated stuff? Like creating jobs? Oh, that's right, government can't create jobs. Well, they can create an atmosphere that is conducive to job creation. Or at least they could if they were to spend less time figuring out the simple stuff.
       Of course some people just can't be convinced it's in the best interest of everyone to make immigration law more open and inviting. We've got the proof now, but some folks just won't buy it. Maybe we should pick one or two states and pass a law that says no first generation immigrant is allowed to live there. They could visit, but they can't stay. Then we could invite all the naysayers to move there. Anybody who refuses to move there must keep their mouths shut on the subject.
 I'd make a suggestion or two about which states to pick, but I have friends in some of those states and I know they wouldn't want to host such rabble. I'm sorry, rabble is such a strong word. Perhaps I should have said unenlightened. My friends wouldn't want to be saddled with those unenlightened.
       Another reason why setting aside a couple of states for these naysayers is that it would appear there might be such a concentration of politicians among them they'd likely implode. There's every reason to believe they'd form some sort of militia and invade neighboring states with the intent to cause mass self deportation to break out. I'll bet people who can trace their ancestry back to the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock would volunteer to self deport themselves just to get away from those unenlightened ones.

Somebody Stole My Recipe.

       Well, let's see. So far Hong Kong (Actually China) has spit in our face and Russia is about to do the same. This Edward Snowden story is long past getting out of hand. And while we're at it, the mam is not a whistle blower. A whistle blower doesn't pick a sworn enemy nation to hid out in. An enemy that then allows him to fly off to another sworn enemy country in order to make connections to a third country who promises to give him sanctuary.
       Here's a recipe for problems. If you take one high school dropout and have him vetted by a company with a suspect reputation and then have a government contractor hire him to access some of the most sensitive computers in the entire country. Then let him gain all the sensitive data he wants any time he wants and then walk off with this data. Maybe, just maybe, there's a problem in this scenario.
       I don't know when it was that all these positions started being filled by private contractors, but it's gone on far too long and far too far. What if you had a bakery with some great tasting deserts? You kept all the recipes in a file marked secret recipes in a locked file cabinet. Then you have a cleaning company come in and you hand the guy a key to the cabinet. He takes the secret recipe file out and takes it to to office copier where he copies all the recipes. Then he walks out and goes over to your competitor and hands over all the recipes. Most likely for a price.
       That's the act of a traitor. No matter that he first gave some of the recipes to the newspaper. He is still a traitor. He betrayed your trust. That's what Ed Snowden did. But what about the competitors? What about China and Russia? Right now they're snickering at us. Will we retaliate? Should we retaliate? You betcha we should. China wants a deal on that ham and sausage company. They should hold their breathe. Russia's gonna want something sooner or later. There needs to be a price for everything.

What's Gonna Happen To The Farms?

       The House of Representatives defeated the Farm Bill this week. But that's not the important issue. And it doesn't mean there will no longer be farms. In fact what will, in all likelihood, happen is another extension to the current bill will get passed until something can be worked out. So what is the importance of this political maneuver, or was it a maneuver at all?
       In the past, farm bills have always passed both houses of Congress by wide margins. Nobody ever wanted to mess with farmers. They drive tractors. With plows. Nobody wants to wake up some morning to find their lawn planted with cabbage. Or even skunkweed. So pretty much everyone voted in favor of these bills in days of yore.
       The other thing is both houses are normally certain of having sufficient votes before bringing such a bill to the floor. But this time, somebody goofed. The Senate passed the bill with no problem. The House leadership thought they could do the same. Oops! The legislation went down to defeat. So the Republicans blamed the Democrats and the Democrats blamed the Republicans. Nobody's brave enough to blame the Tea Party. Until now.
       So how did this happen? Not the blaming part. Everybody knows how the blaming works. But how did this happen. Well, usually each side gets what they want and everybody votes in favor. But this time the Food Stamp program got cut by an extra $20 billion. So the Democrats decided not to vote for the bill. A bunch of Republicans voted against the bill because it didn't cut enough from the Food Stamp program.
       Ya see? When ya get too greedy, things have a way of going sour. I've never heard of anyone "on food stamps" who wouldn't prefer to be rich enough not to be on food stamps. If you ask anybody, they'd rather have more money. Taking food stamps away from people who can't afford to buy good nutritious food, doesn't help anybody. It sure doesn't help the poor and it doesn't help middle class taxpayers in the long run. So who does it help? Folks who are mostly interested in ideology, that's who.

Tax Reform? No Way.

       On MSNBC's Morning Jo this morning they made a good point that trying to tax the rich does two things. First it causes those wealthy folks to move their financial lives off shore. So we don't get any taxes at all. Secondly all that's left is small businesses to pay those higher taxes, thereby cutting the potential for new jobs. I still have a problem with this one, but assuming it's true, then that only leaves the middle class to pay all the bills. The poor still can't afford any tax. Which is another discussion.
       So why is it then, that neither left nor right seems to want to change the system? Oh, to be sure, both the Republicans and the Democrats demand change. To get to tax reform, now. Yep, the politicians agree wholeheartedly with this idea. We must reform our tax code to make it more fair. Democrats want the rich to pay more, the Republicans want tax relief for the rich.
       But if you peel back the layers of polititalk what you find is that, since both sides are financed by the rich and mainly by rich corporations, there's no real desire to change the system. That's because most giant corporations like our tax system just fine the way it is. It allows them to deduct most of their income or keep it offshore so it doesn't count as income in the U.S. at all.
       In order to fix our problem, these mega-corporations would wind up paying a lot more in taxes. Now who would be against that? Well, of course, the Democrats and Republicans in office, that's who would be against that. But it's more politically correct for everyone to be in favor of fixing our tax system. Heck, even corporations will tell you that. If you want to hear that sort of thing.
       The real question is do we want things to change? Tax accountants and lawyers don't want change, corporations don't want change. Even the IRS probably doesn't want change because 75% of them would be layed off. Even talk show hosts would be unhappy with change. And sorry but what the middle class and the poor want doesn't count.