What A Great Campaign He's Waging.

Okay. What have you been learning from the two campaigns for president? What do you think of the two varying grand plans for our economy and taxation, budget cutting, debt and deficit reduction and all the important issues being clearly and carefully and thoughtfully discussed by the candidates both for president and congress? What's that you say? You think they haven't said anything clearly or carefully or thoughtfully about anything? Well except for their opponent's inability to do the job? Of course there's still lots of time. We could yet hear one or both sides clearly state their plan for the future of our country without suggesting that the only way to save the country is to throw all the bums from the other party out. That's pretty much what our electoral process has devolved to. Don't suggest anything new or remotely workable in case somebody doesn't like that idea and decides to donate money to your opponent. This is pretty much what David Brooks said today in the New York Times. And ya know what? He's pretty much right on the mark. Instead of clearly stating what their vision for a better America is and even more importantly, how we can attain that vision, the candidates find it more productive to just bash their opponent. There is a method to this madness though. See, if you don't suggest anything, nobody can point out how stupid it is. Even if it isn't stupid at all. Even if it's a great idea. Because, the thinking goes, even if it is a great idea, the opponent will bash you for it and then if elected, use it himself. And wouldn't that be the tragedy for all times.

Entitlements. Love Em Or Hate Em.

Have you ever heard of the term 'entitlements'? How about 'entitlement generation'? Okay, most people think of entitlements as funding for the poor, out of work or just plain lazy people who are supported by the government to one degree or another. Entitlement generation is all about the boomer generation. The boomer generation has also been called the"Worst Generation", the most self centered, self-absorbed and a lot of other negative adverbs. But there's another group of people who are actually deeply involved with government entitlements. The wealthy are given special treatment in taxes, access, and other benefits not available to anyone else. In some cases they pay no more taxes than do the very poor because of special loopholes in tax law designed strictly for the very rich. Ya see, entitlement, the word, means basically, special treatment. It means someone is entitled to something for free that the rest don't get. Now for the very poor, entitlements mean the difference between starving of getting through another day. But for some, entitlements mean an extra trip abroad, a vacation ski lodge in Aspen or an automobile elevator in the house. The question comes down to whether we feel anyone is entitled to anything? We do expect that everyone should be entitled to some things. I'd like to think I've got the right to vote. I'd like to feel free to breathe clean air, drink clean water or even drive my gas hog and keep my wood stove going 24-7. But it doesn't quite work that way. I also think that the poor and disabled deserve or are entitled to be supported by society to the extent needed. I'm just not as convinced the very rich should be entitled to extra special treatment, just because they are the very rich.

What You Don't Know About The NRA.

Well folks, the NRA and the U.S. Senate have teamed up to prevent any control of international selling of arms to anybody in the world who wants to start a revolution or just plain overthrow any government. You heard it here second. The United Nations was working on a treaty to restrict, not ban, just supervise international arms sales. Nearly all countries were and are in favor of such a treaty. Except for the biggest arms selling countries. The three biggest are, in alphabetical order, China, Russia and the U.S.A. Does that surprise you? I mean that America is one of the major arms shippers or that they would be against any oversight of such sales? Well, it's not so much that America is against such oversight as it is that the N.R.A. is against any oversight. Now you may wonder why an organization of sportsmen would be against such a treaty. What you don't realize is that the idea that the NRA is a sportsman's organization, is pure fiction. The NRA (National Rifle Association) is funded by the Manufacturers of firearms. Oh there are dues that many sportsmen mistakenly think pays for the NRA to operate, but in fact wouldn't even pay for the bar tab for the NRA. No, it's funded by the Manufacturers. So, what's good for the manufacturers is good for the NRA. And what's good for the manufacturers is nothing that in any way might cut into profits. So the Senate has told the President, in writing, not to sign the treaty. And they crack the whip, because the Senate ratifies all treaties, or not. Even the past point man for the congress, Jay Dickey of Arkansas, has tried to back research into injuries and deaths caused by firearms violence just like they do for motor vehicle accidents. But the NRA has blocked it. Yes, friends, it's time to begin a Constitutional Convention to change some wording to  "For the NRA, Of the NRA and By the NRA." 

Thars Gold In Them Thar Drugs.

How much did you pay for your last prescription? Hmm. Okay then, how much did it cost your insurance company to pay for your prescription and what does that mean to your premium? Ahah. That's another story isn't it? Well a big part of that cost is because brand name drugs often have no generic option, even long after the patent has run out. How come, you ask? Because the brand name drug maker often pays the generic makers not to bring their generic to market. Look, Bayer that makes Cipro, which is a good antibiotic, paid Barr Labs $400 million to delay it's marketing of a generic. And they claim it's all legal and above board. Not only that but several federal appeals courts agreed. So while other industries can't do that without getting hit with an antitrust suit because of things like price-fixing and anti-competitive practices, the drug companies have been doing it for years and smiling all the way to the bank. Let's face it, $400 million for doing nothing ain't a bad days work, or lack thereof. Suppose Wrangler got together with all the other manufacturers of jeans and set the price of their wrangler jeans about 50% higher and all sell them thar jeans for the same high price, or suppose everybody decided that wrangler would be the only jeans you could buy. You and your kids would have a fit, partly because they didn't like the fit, but they'd be stuck. Well Wrangler can't do that because of antitrust laws. So how come drug companies can do it? I dunno. But now an appeals court has said they can't do that. Could be that the Supreme Court will have to decide. It's anybody's guess what they'll do.

Want To Know Who You'll Vote For?

I watched Morning Joe a bit this morning on MSNBC and it was pointed out that Karl Rove's SuperPAC, Crossroads America, has spent $94 million so far supporting Mitt Romney. And the Republican Party hasn't even had it's convention yet. Romney hasn't even been nominated yet. Imagine how much more it will spend. And the Democrats are trying just as hard to raise money to spend on the campaign. Now that's not illegal, in fact it's exactly what the Supreme Court said they can do in the Citizen's United case. But what it did was to bring to my attention that by the time the next election cycle rolls around in 2016, there will be two or three people in this country who will decide who you and I can vote for, for president. The cost of running a campaign now-a-days is so tremendously expensive that without a Karl Rove in your corner, you will have no chance to even get nominated by either party. Now these two or three people aren't going to run for office themselves, they're just gonna pull the strings of whoever does run. Nobody with that much disposable money to spend on an election campaign does it without expecting something in return. So next time, before the primary campaign begins, the successful nominee may already have been selected in both parties. To wit, I hereby and humbly offer myself to any multi-billionaires, that I am available. To my credit, I have tried to be a straight shooter. But I am willing to miss the mark if that's what you need. I'm willing to state my willingness to be anti whatever you'd like me to anti about. I'm willing to be for or against anyone you choose. In short, I'm you man. Please keep this in the strictest of confidence.

Eat Yer Broccoli.

There's been over a dozen states that have suddenly decided to enact Voter ID requirements. Mostly rather restrictive. Most have claimed to have done it to eliminate voter fraud. But not one single state can claim more than one actual case, proven in court, to have been a case their new laws would have stopped. So if there's no cases of such wrongdoing, why the rush to push through laws that could easily disenfranchise 8% to 10% of those state's populations? In Pennsylvania that includes up to 859,000 current voters who would not be able to vote in this November's election. Could there be another motive? Again in Pennsylvania, the Republican leader of the state legislature stated, on camera, that "voter ID legislation - done! This will allow Gov Romney to win Pennsylvania this year." How can this be, you ask? Why don't these folks just get IDs? Many don't know it. Not everyone pays close attention to the news. "I voted last time, they know me, I'll vote this time." Others don't have the where-with-all to afford the proof required to obtain an ID or the transportation or the cost of transportation to obtain one. Did the state know this information before passing the legislation? If they didn't, shame on them for not doing their homework. If they did, shame on them for doing that homework. Now if you don't need a reason to pass a law, then why not pass a law to require everyone to eat broccoli? It will cause health to break out. Remember, no proof is required.

I Need Only Say, Michelle Bachmann.

Well Sen. Joe McCarthy is still at it. Oh. No. I meant Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is still at it. Oh well, two birds of a feather. Michelle, if I may call her Michelle, probably not with what I'm going to say, but anyway Ms Bachmann, I'm surprised that even after members of your own party including Sec. John McCain, who stood up on the Senate floor to denounce your comments about a loyal employee of the State Dept. and another elected congressman. Even after all that, you're still claiming they're secretly planning a takeover and installation of Sharia Law in America. What concerns me is how our government and our judicial system got so weak that such a takeover could actually take place. Wouldn't it require a majority vote in both houses and the president and then clear the Supreme Court? And Michelle, oops, I forgot, I mean Ms Bachmann can only find one elected official and one employee of the government. Just imagine the mind power it took to piece this little bit of (proof????) together and be able to come to such a conclusion. It boggles the mind. And wobbles and gobbles and hobbles the mind. If her information is true and correct, which I have two hundred of the sharpest investigators in history working on it, then this is the most astounding discovery since, I guess, since the dairy dinosaur. I wonder if she's keeping such a herd? Perhaps that's where she got her information. One morning while milking one of her dinosaurs. A bronto bull, it whispered this information to her: "Follow the milk." Well when this congressman and federal employee both came to the dinosaur store to buy bronto bull milk, she knew she had the goods on them. Right up until they paid for the stuff and evaporated. We think they may be sweetened and condensed too.