Not Every Legislator Ignores Us. Too Bad.

       Have you ever received a phone call from your congressman's aid? I did yesterday. It's not the first time either. Congressmen never make the call themselves unless you're calling to give them some money, lots of money. The call was in response to a less than flattering letter I had sent him a while back. The aid asked my opinion on a number of issues and I answered about those and other issues. I found fault with a number of them, I think we feel differently on most issues.
       I asked him why it was that nobody in Washington was talking about jobs, but everybody wants to starve the economy, a move that can only harm job growth. There was a pair of economists who did a report on how austerity would help the economy. Until it was pointed out that their information was flawed. It seems they left out some important information that, when added in, disproved their theory.
      We talked about education and why some legislators want to end the Education Department. He asked if I felt decisions are better made on the local level. I said not necessarily. He asked why. I pointed out that not all board members in school districts have the best interest of the students in mind. That all too often some members of school boards are there for personal reasons. To get a child hired at a neighboring school or to cut taxes, and have little or no interest in the actual educating of the students. It's not so hard to get elected. Who wants that job anyway? It's a thankless one.
       I mentioned term limits hoping that would shut him up. He pointed out his boss had said he agreed with term limits. I asked if his boss planned to run again? He replied that it was too soon to know? I think he thought I'd believe that one. Have you ever heard a politician state he was sure he would or would not run? Not until about a year before the actual election.
       I don't think he was overly happy with my responses, but he did say he would type them up and give them to his boss. I'll have to check his circular file. Then he invited me to keep writing to the Congressman. He appreciates all letters from his constituents. It's easy to say that if you plan on recycling them. Or maybe they could go into one of those $5 million incinerators the army can't use in Afghanistan.

Here's Why We Need Austerity.

       Deficit hawks and stimulus advocates alike are rushing to the aid of the Abrams tank. After all, this behemoth needs to be protected like any other wild creature. And after all, it is under assault from the very home it was intended to save. That's right folks, the Abrams tank is no longer loved by the Army. Actually it's not so much that it's unloved as it has outlived it's usefulness, at least for the most part. I mean the Army still likes it's tanks and does not plan to give them up.
       It's just that it doesn't need any more than it already has. Which is quite a few. Fortunately Congress knows better than those unimaginative Army generals. Congress seems to have figured out that America still has a major tank battle in it's near future. Perhaps in Arizona, along the border. Or perhaps in New York City for crowd control. For this reason we need more tanks.
       Either that or it may be that Congress realizes that tanks are made in the good old USA. And more specifically in legislative districts. And no more tanks means no more jobs, making tanks. Ya know, I think I may have hit on something here. The government does create jobs after all. Like anything for the military and our infrastructure.
       Now some folks will insist government does not create jobs, only the private sector can do that. Well, except for military needs and infrastructure. Government dreamed up most of the infrastructure, designed it and built it, or rather I should say, paid for it. You never saw any private sector offer to pay for any of it. Although the private sector was quick to take advantage of it, and now that much of it is deteriorating, you do see the private sector doing it's part. They're complaining about the poor condition of the infrastructure they depend on.
       But what you don't see is the private sector doing anything about the poor condition of our infrastructure. Well, except for the complaining. Why is that? It's because it's not the private sectors job to build, care for and replace infrastructure when needed. Except that Congress knows we need to cut costs so we can reduce taxes, presumable so that the private sector can make repairs caused by failing infrastructure.

The Great arms, oops I mean, Helium Race.

       I want to talk to you today about a grave concern we all have over a topic that has Congress in a dither. Do we or do we not save the National Helium Reserve? Just how important is helium anyway? I'll tell you how important it is, our Department Of Defense has concerns over our falling behind 1925 Germany. You heard it right, back in 1925, Germany was taking the lead in producing military dirigibles and zeppelins. We couldn't allow that to happen, so we developed the National Helium Reserve.  The Great Blimp Race was on.
       That was 88 years ago. Well, we all know how that turned out. America won the day. And we still have a National Helium Reserve. It's made of glue. It's stuck to Congress and Congress can't get rid if it. Reagan tried, Clinton tried and Obama is trying, but so far nobody has been able to end a program for which there is no military need. The only use for blimps today is for Goodyear to fly cameramen over football games. And  additional uses for helium includes loosing balloons over birthday parties. To be fair, it's used in MRIs and for some research by scientists. None of which involves the military.
        So, the program is or was set to expire this year, but our trusty Congress has ridden to the rescue on it's flaming white blimp. After all, where will smiling clowns get the helium for the balloons for birthday parties if not from the federal military helium reserve? Ya see, the fear is that no private company is standing by to take up the mantle of helium king. Nobody is willing to lift the heavy weight of supplying helium to those in great need of talking funny after breathing in the stuff.
       Of course, one reason nobody is waiting in the wings is because the Federal Helium Reserve has been selling it at a much lower than market price. Trust our government to pay too much for what it buys and sell for much less than anybody else. There must be a message in there somewhere. But just because the government has things backward, doesn't mean the Congress doesn't want to continue operations.  Our Representatives and Senators have voted overwhelmingly to continue in this lost leader business. As a business model, any self respecting corporation would die of extreme laughter.

Incinerators vs Burn Pits.

       Well, the U.S. military is back in the news. It seems they bought two new incinerators for $5 million. They were to be used to replace burn pits to get rid of solid waste in Forward Operation Base Salerno, in Afghanistan. They were purchased from a Turkish firm and, as usual for military purchases, they went through rigorous specifications and inspection before delivery was accepted.
       Not surprisingly, the two units would not do the job they were designed to do. In fact they wouldn't work at all. There were significant deficiencies like "leaking hydraulic lines, missing pipe insulation and rusted housings on motors," according to an article in the Washington Post. These problems didn't bother the Corp of Engineers though. They were accepted even though the capacity of the incinerators of 16 tons per 24 hour period of operation didn't factor in that, because of the dangerous location of the camp, they were not allowed to be used at night.
       So now they sit, rusting in a makeshift dump in the camp. In the meantime a burn pit had to be dug, in order to burn all the solid waste. This is against military policy because of the potential danger to anyone who breathes the fumes and smoke. Which would include everyone in this camp. And don't ya just have to wonder what the solid waste they have to burn is?
       So let's take stock. There was a problem with using a burn pit, so two, under capacity, incinerators of inferior construction were purchased at a cost of $5 million to do a job they couldn't do. So they were thrown into a dump area and a hole was dug for a burn pit. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just dig a burn pit and move everybody out of the camp a safe distance. Maybe set the burn pit up to appear like a resort spa for the Taliban?
       What I can't get over is why we spend so much money on items the end users don't want, can't use and for which nobody had the foresight to just ask the folks who will use the items what they actually needed. Oh, and wouldn't you think the Corp of Engineers would think to check to see if the damn things worked as advertised? I wonder if there was any warranty that came with these incinerators? I'd like my money back.

In Washington, Life Goes On.

       Here's more good news for you to enjoy. Two things have happened or may be happening soon. First, sometime last year Congress voted to make it illegal for themselves or their staffs to participate in insider trading practices. That was a good thing. But very recently, Congress rescinded the part about disclosure. So now it may be illegal to trade on insider information, but nobody will be allowed to know if they do. I guess it's the honor system. Question is; is there any honor in Congress?
       Secondly the Security and Exchange Commission thinks it should require publicly held corporations to report any and all political donations to their shareholders. You should hear the squawking over that. "The unions don't have to report their donations" which is true,  "Tax exempt groups don't have to report it either" also true, but then the SEC doesn't have any control over these groups.
       A petition to the SEC in favor has over half a million comments, with the vast majority in favor. But House Republicans and the US Chamber of Commerce are up in arms. They're ready to declare all out war against the SEC. Which is a shame because this would be a big help towards cleaning up our electoral system. I agree Non Profits and Unions should be required to do the same. But that's not what corporations and the GOP want. They want that money to keep flowing without any messy reporting that could get the corporations in trouble with their shareholders or customers.
       I can see their point though. What if they wanted to get some politician defeated in his campaign? What if their customers like this politician? Wouldn't that hurt the bottom line? What if the politician found out? Wouldn't that hurt their chances for a fat contract? I guess the real question is; why aren't these corporations willing to stand up and have the courage to speak out no matter if it might hurt them? I guess they'd rather show one face and secretly be another face. Wouldn't that make them two faced?

Enemy Combatants Or Background Checks.

       I love people like Senator Lindsey Graham. He's a Senator from one of the reddest states in the country, South Carolina. He's so conservative even his cheeks are rosy. Now he wants to have the surviving Boston bomber interrogated as an enemy combatant, even though there's no proof at all that he is. That's what he wants him questioned for. To find out if he is. Now I thought we had to have some sound idea that he is before we question him as one.
       Otherwise he's the same as Timothy McVeigh, or Ted Kaczynski, the unibomber. A home grown terrorist. It seems that lots of conservatives and even some progressives are willing to subvert the Constitution in order to get the kind of information they want. You know, like right after 9-11 when people were so frightened that they were willing to ignore the rule of law to protect themselves?
       The thing is though, while Senator Graham is willing to overlook the Constitution on this, he was totally unwilling to do something he claimed was unconstitutional, but wasn't. He refused to vote in favor of background checks to buy guns. Now a lot of people think background checks to buy guns violates the 2nd amendment. But ya see, if they would read the 2nd amendment, they'd see that it doesn't say anything about background checks one way or the other.
       What it does say is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So ya see? It doesn't mention anything about background checks, but it does mention a well regulated militia as being necessary. It looks to me like background checks falls under regulating, doesn't it?
       Now some folks claim that the militia wording meant only the militias the states had and since the states don't have militias anymore, that part of the constitution's 2nd amendment doesn't count anymore. Only it was never legally expunged or removed. That means it is still in the 2nd. And wishing it wasn't, doesn't make it so. From what I've learned, if it's in the Constitution, it's the law, if it ain't, it ain't law. Like the Federalist Papers. They were never passed into law, they ain't in the Constitution. They ain't law.

Cowardice On Display.

       On Wednesday, the Senate of the United States of America showed what they're made of. Fear of the gun manufacturer's lobbying arm. Fear of the NRA. Fear for their jobs. But the real question is unanswered. Does the NRA really represent over three million members? Or does it represent the gun manufacturers, even in opposition to what it's membership wants and expects from it's elected officials in Washington?
       I can tell you that gun owners and NRA members don't want to be forced to give up their guns. But that's already been decided. By the constitution and by the courts. Nobody can take your gun. And so the fear mongering that the NRA relies on is simply untrue. Nobody's coming for your gun. Period! Get over it. But realize that the NRA gets the vast majority of its funding from the manufacturers of guns here in America and abroad.
       Also remember that these manufacturers are "for profit corporations." They're in business to sell the products they make. And the more they make and sell, the more profits they make. They engage registered lobbying firms to convince congress not to regulate gun sales. They provide the NRA with much more money to do the same thing. The NRA then uses this money to try to convince gun owners the government wants your gun. It, the NRA, also spends its time lobbying congress by means of threats of retaliation for votes in favor of gun legislation. If you vote for even the slightest bill to regulate firearms, they threaten to spend money to try to get you defeated in your next election.
       It's these strong-arm tactics, this bullying, that's at the heart of our problems with gun legislation. And it's the lack of sound gun legislation that permits lawless and unstable people to commit unthinkable crimes. No, gun legislation won't stop every tragedy. And it will take time for the laws to work. The alternative is to allow this madness to continue. Thank you U.S. Senators for you lack of concern for your fellow Americans. Your votes to stop legislation will allow the danger to continue to increase.
       So what's the best argument the NRA teaches legislator? These proposed laws won't work. They won't stop the killing. Okay, but based on that philosophy no law either proposed or already on the books works. We set speed limits on highways, but some people speed anyway. Murder is against the law but people murder anyway.  Based on NRA arguments, I guess we shouldn't have any laws.