Anybody Can Sue Over Anything, but...

       Speaker of the House, John Boehner is suing President Barak Obama. Isn't that a fine kettle of fish? So what's the beef? Well, speaker Boehner is mad that President Obama is taking some actions on his own without Congressional approval. President Obama is taking actions where he thinks Congress won't or can't do anything. What's this really about? Should the presidency be no more than a figurehead position or should the presidency have a wide latitude for action, especially when the Congress doesn't act?
       Well according to an article in the Washington Post today, the law suite is really about executive authority. Does the president have any, or should the president have any? Presidents have been using executive authority for most if not all of the 20th century and of course all of the 21st century. In fact Obama has used that authority less than almost any other president. But the Speaker is greatly upset that Obama is using this authority to get things done that the majority in the house don't want done, but can't actually get a vote to disapprove those actions. It's what we in the human world like to call a bunch of silliness, or un-American, depending on which side you're on.
       So now the question might be put, eventually, to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is getting exciting. All three branches of the country will be embroiled in a real controversy. There's gonna be a full court press by the press to grow this into a 24/7/52 news story, but seriously, I suppose it needs to be answered. Should the presidency be just a rubber stamp for Congress or should the president be allowed to do anything he wants or is there some middle ground to be determined and who's gonna make that determination and how will they be able to cover every single example?
       If you think this is some small thing easily decided, you'd better think again. The thing is, during times when there is a relatively smooth running congress, there is probably less need for presidential actions, but when things are like they are now, well then, somebody's gotta be the adult in the room.
     

Judges And Travel And Crude And Crud.

       There are two interesting items in the news today. Why is it that our Supreme Court Justices get reimbursed for trips to foreign countries and weddings? Aside from a salary of around a quarter of a million per year, and book royalties and speaking fees, the nine justices are reimbursed for travel including to foreign countries. One even turned in travel expenses to a wedding. I'm just not sure we need to pay for our Supreme Court Justices to go all over the world. Do they need to see how other countries handle their laws? I thought our judges decided cases dealing with our laws, not Norway's or Uruguay's or wherever's laws. I think it's fine if a Supreme Court Justice wants to visit Italy or Japan, but do we have to pay for them to do it.
       Then for the first time in four decades America will begin to export oil. Really? Well yes, but we've been exporting gasoline and other oil products all along. So the real question is; are we or are we not already energy independent? I mean, if we stopped exporting oil or it's refined products, would we then have enough oil to meet our own needs? And if we would, then why do we need the Keystone XL pipeline? From everything I've read, and with all the hype about needing that pipeline to provide oil for our needs, and the fact that if the XL is built, most if not all of that oil is already spoken for. And that 'spoken for' oil will be shipped over seas. So that the result of the pipeline would mean that America would be left with none of that oil, but all the crud removed from it in the process of cleaning and refining it would be our gift.
       Don't we have enough problem getting rid of the crud we generate with our own oil? Why do we need Canada's crud? How does that help us? Oh I understand that a few international corporations will make a ton of money off this project. They may call themselves American companies, but really they're far more international than just national. They're AINO (American In Name only) and while they do generate lots of jobs, they're not gonna quit generating those jobs if they don't get their way on the Keystone XL pipeline. They still want to sell our oil.

It Ain't Easy Placing Blame.

       I'd like to know just who's to blame for all the problems in the middle east today. Who can we look in the eye and say "it's your fault?" Well, okay, but we're gonna have to go back a ways. After WWI, the "big war". The War to end all wars, the European winners of that conflict, got to build new countries out of the middle east. I don't think the U.S. was interested in any of it at the time. So England and France sort of drew lines on a map and named the countries.
       The problem with that was they didn't give any consideration to ethnic or religious hatreds. They just divided up the land and claimed sovereignty over their chosen pieces of sand. That threw Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds and anyone else who happened to be there into the same states, then ruled them with iron fists until tribal strongmen and dictators took over.
       Now fast forward to the 1980s. America was now mad as all get out with the Iranians. We helped Saddam Husain because he went to war with Iran. We secretly gave him all sorts of help including poison gas, which he later used on Iran and his own people, but he was still our darling in the mid-east. Then at the end of that decade, he decided he'd like Kuwait. Saddam was no different than most dictators in that he was never satisfied with that he had. So he had his people ask our people if it was okay with us if he took Kuwait. The answer he got back was yeah, yeah, whatever.
       So he took Kuwait and suddenly we were mortified. We forced him out of Kuwait after a short but memorable war. Then in 2002 our Administration was looking for an excuse to kick this bad guy out. He had weapons of mass destruction and was trying for the nuclear advantage. Not really, but it sounded good to a lot of people. So we kicked out the only guy in the middle east that actually was keeping a lid on all the sectarian hatreds. Brutally, but effectively. This was to be the second short war with Iraq. This quick, slick, clean operation lasted a brief 10 years.
       Then the democratically elected government of Iraq kicked us out. They didn't want us and if we left any troops in Iraq, Al Maliki wouldn't promise not to arrest any of our soldiers. So we left. And as sure as the rising and setting of the sun, the various factions and religions and ethnicities started fighting. So getting back to who we should blame, I'd say we should blame every president and advisor to presidents we've had since WWI. Equally. But anyway you slice it, because they have oil, they're gonna be a thorn in our side.

The Redistribution Of Wealth.

       For a goodly number of years, we've been fighting about redistribution instead of  plain old distribution. In America that argument has pitted progressives against conservatives. Progressives complain that the wealthy elite in this country have been getting, by far, the largest piece of the pie and it's time to take some back and give it to those who have been left behind. In the meantime, conservatives have moaned that taking away wealth from those who have earned it will stunt growth because they're the job creators.
       Actually neither approach is completely wrong, but neither approach is completely correct. There's a little truth in the liturgy of both political theologies. Which makes both just ever so slightly dangerous. In order to make a real difference, progressives would have to take substantial wealth from the 1%. In fact, so much that it would likely drive many to leave the country, where their wealth would be out of reach of our government.
       But what if we decided to change course and stop asking for redistribution of wealth. If they've earned it then let em keep it. But let's stop allowing the wealthy to continue to reap astronomical incomes in the future. Let's demand that employees make a much larger share of the profits. So you may think that would simply push more companies to go more mechanized, more robotics. and you'd be right, but that wouldn't change the trend. That's happening anyway. But that would only mean that the fewer employees would make even more. As it is now, the biggest share of profits go to the top, but in this plan, the biggest share would have to go to the bottom. Think of it as a pyramid where you need to strengthen the base to support the structure
       So, what happens to those who would still be left behind? In our current economic plan, the majority of citizens are left behind. In this plan fewer, but still many would be left behind. The difference is that in this new plan, even with our current tax atmosphere, more people would be paying higher taxes and that increased tax revenue would have to be targeted to aid the poor.
       It would mean lower income for the wealthy, but it wouldn't touch what they already have. And it wouldn't change their current tax structure. I'm just saying.

Time To Stop Wasting Time.

       As near as I can determine, all of Washington is completely fixated on the Iraq crisis. There are calls for Obama to step down, there's even calls for his entire National Security team to be fired. There were calls for former Gen. David Petraeus  to make recommendations. At least until he made a speech in which he suggested we stay out of it, militarily.
       All of this talk is important stuff, but it doesn't address the most important stuff. Nobody seems to be trying to figure out how to help the poor, middle class and unemployed. It's the economy stupid! Now if the reason for not working on it is because they don't know what to do or how to get it passed in Congress, then there's a really simple solution. All these folks who don't know how to solve the problems or how to get them passed need to step down themselves.
       The thing we all have to remember is that all these folks in Washington were sent there to serve our needs. We supposedly picked smart people to lead us, but if they can't do that, then we need to replace them. Now I don't expect to hear them all break out in a round of Kum-Ba-Yah around the campfire, but I do expect them to honestly and earnestly work on these problems. The thing is, you can't hate the President or your opposite number and actually do the job you're there for.
       Now if the problem is that the electorate doesn't want to worry about the poor, middle class or unemployed, then these good folks, who mostly profess to be Christians, need to read the bible. Especially the first book of John, chapter three, verse 17. No, not the gospel of John, John's first letter. Read it over several times to be sure you understand it. Then, like it or not, you ought to follow that advise. Thus endeth my preaching. Back in Washington, those folks need to begin to do the work they were selected to do. Or we need to replace them. Pay attention class.

So, How's Your State Doing?

       Well, our economy has been slowly improving, but not for everyone, as is obvious. That's true even for our states. I was just looking at a list of the poorest economies among the states. The lowest states starting with # 10 are Maine, Illinois, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and the worst is Alaska according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. If you look at them, six are red states, 2 are purple and two are blue. Penna. has more blue voters but the Governor and legislature are red. Virginia has just changed from a red to a blue governor.
       So what does all this mean? I suppose some talking heads can expound on this question for hours on end. But what it boils down to is they all could be doing better if they weren't so involved in the political maneuvering that grips the whole country.
Here's what I think. Democratic leadership or Republican leadership could both do a bang up job on the economy with just a little support from the opposition and a little less rhetoric of negative sound bites from both sides. And the worst part is that outside interests are the worst agitators and liars of all. These bad actors make up untruths about opposition leaders they don't know anything about and don't care to know. Their only interest is to get their man elected by any means, even if it takes outright lies. And a no-nothing electorate facilitates them.
       Back to the states. So if you live in one of these poor performing states, you might want to remember that fact come November when it comes time for you to vote for your favorite neighbor. Maybe that neighbor isn't helping you much. In fact, maybe he's hindering you and holding you back. Maybe you should consider voting against him this time. Ya know, folks always say things should change. We should vote all those bums out of office. But in the next breath they say, "but my guy is a good guy." NO HE ISN'T. VOTE HIM OUT TOO.

Well! This Is A Fine Kettle Of Fish.

       How come Eric Cantor lost his primary election? He was majority leader in the House of Representatives for goodness sakes. He was a conservative, I really mean that, he was. He was pretty far right. Who could be more far right and still get elected in America? Well, as it turns out, there are lots of folks farther right and that's why he got beat. There were some other things I think, like not paying enough attention to his home district, but still. He outspent his rival by something like 50 to one. But his opponent latched onto two issues and beat Cantor over the head with them. Immigration which the base didn't want and that old beltway lament.
       But here's my question. Here's what I wonder about. It seems like the Tea Party Right is moving far, far to the right causing the Democrats to move somewhat to the left and meanwhile what's left of the Republicans along with some independents somewhere near the center right. This sounds like a fair matchup except that those far right folks are concentrated in the deep south and the very rural midwest. They hold sway in a lot of states with few citizens and that gives them the potential for a lot of congressional seats. Probably more seats than their numbers warrant.
       What that leaves is an America that is so split that nobody will have a clear majority. Even if the Republicans hold both houses, they will be too fractured to govern. And the chances are that the Democrats are still likely to hold onto the White House. And Republicans will hate the next president as much as they do the current one. What exists in our country today was never considered by our founding fathers. In fact I think I hear them all turning over in their graves and groaning. It's not that there aren't ways to fix this mess, it's just that nobody's willing to give an inch let alone the mile that's necessary.