Lola For President

Still Convinced Humans are Better for the Job than Dogs???

2011-12-11T20:08:00.005-06:00

So until I find a way to raise campaign dollars to afford to post more often, I have a day job helping to raise my little sister who will be one a month from now. Let me tell you, she is a walking handful getting into everything. She especially loves to get into my water. And because I am a good big sister I never ever bite her. Mostly I follow her around sniffing her diaper. I can't help it.

So back to politics and the Republican race for the nomination. Much has happened since my last post. Perry apparently had a chance and has been blowing it over and over since. Herman Cain actually appeared to have a chance and then blew it enough to drop out. I don't know one way or the other if those women are lying or not. But as a dog, I would never have a friendship that my family didn't know about. And I am instantly best friends with everyone I meet. I want to meet you all!!!!

So the replacement to Cain at this point seems to be Newt. Does he have too much baggage or is his baggage enough in the past that people don't care anymore? For sure Romney and Perry are going to try and remind you all of it as if they have no skeletons to be found. I have no idea but if they have any someone somewhere will find them and pull them out.

Does Perry have a chance still? I tend to think his latest add campaign was not genius. People will see it as a shot at gay people rather than what I think he was trying to portray that the rights of Christians are being picked away at. I admit, it took me a second or third listen to hear that. I don't think many people are hearing it that way. I originally heard it as 'it's a shame gay people can now serve openly in the military.' It comes across as that is what he believes at first so much so that most people won't bother to give it a second or third chance. That is why I think this ad is the nail in his coffin because even though they aren't paying to play it everywhere, people everywhere are hearing it.

Romney....I don't even know what to say about him. Since he won't support the fair tax, I don't like him. Not sure about the health care plan in Massachusetts either. I've heard/read conflicting opinions about success vs. disaster. I don't live there so I don't know how it's working for everyone and for the state budget. I will admit it was definitely interesting 4 years ago. Here's what bothers me about him. I have heard traditionally 'liberal supporting' people say they would be ok with Romney. So that makes me think he's going to be politics as usual. I don't know. I suppose he could surprise me. I hope, given that he looks like a shoo in at this point.

You still think these guys are better than me??? Seriously?!?! Who's more loyal to humans than a dog??? No one I tell you.....NO ONE!!!! Now spread the word.

Does Herman Cain Have a Chance?

2011-09-24T20:21:00.000-05:00

Is it possible?? Could it be true?? Are people finally paying attention to what Herman Cain has to say?? The only non-politician in the Republican race? According to this cnn article, he just cleaned Perry's clock in the Florida straw poll with 37% of the votes. Perry came in 2nd with 15% of the votes. All others were relatively close behind Perry.

Is it possible that the annoyance of Perry v. Romney is causing the masses to pay attention to the fact that Herman Cain is offering or pitching actual solutions as opposed to political rhetoric? It's kind of sad that he's forced to run for the Republican ticket because he doesn't sound like other Republicans. He sounds like a conservative who knows what he's talking about and doesn't spit out talking points. Ron Paul sounds similar except his delivery is in the form of grumpy old man.

If you haven't bothered to listen to Herman Cain yet, take the time to listen to his message. Take notice of the fact that he's the only non-politician running.

Side note back on Perry. He's suddenly pitch school vouchers at the 'federal' level, but for someone who talks about 'states rights,' he didn't bother to even mention or pitch school vouchers during the recent Texas legislative session that he had both the house and senate full of republicans. Watch their actions. If they don't match their words, then you have a politician. I thought we were sick and tired of politics as usual.

Rick Perry: An Opinion from the Perspective of a Texan

2011-08-27T21:15:00.002-05:00

So Rick Perry is finally in and you're super excited because he sounds so 'conservative.' In fact he sounds so libertarian for that matter with his talk of freedom, no taxes, and secession here in Texas. He brags about how many jobs he's brought to Texas. It's hard to argue that under his 'leadership' the Texas economy has fared better than most.

But here's the deal. The lieutenant governor has more responsibility for that than the governor in this state. This state has the ideal structure in that it has a weak governor. The most power he has is to veto legislation or not. He just gets to tout around the united states making speeches and taking credit for the positives. What's he's not telling you is that we faced a huge legislative short fall this last session that just ended. They made up for it with accounting tricks. Meaning we (state government) are only funded through the first half of the fiscal year 2013. (Texas operates/budgets on bienniums as the legislature meets once every 2 years). So there are 6 months that we're not funded for yet. They also deferred payment of many bills to the next biennium. Meaning the next legislature will have to find the money to pay for it. How convenient since Perry supposes he will be president by then and this fiasco will 'blow up' under someone else's watch.

These accounting tricks are all so he can run for president and tell people that Texas balance the budget unlike Washington. We might not be in as much trouble financially as Washington, but the political budgeting isn't all that different. And Texas isn't out of the hole yet.

What else has he done while here. One of the big recent items is that he's committed state funds ($25M/year to the owner) during a major budget shortfall to pay for the rights to have the formula one race come to Austin. Not really Austin but outside of Austin where there's a 2 lane road that is not prepared to handle the traffic for 150,000 people (more or less). Well maybe less if some people helicopter in from the airport. They originally planned the race during June or July. But I suppose the record triple digit heat during both of those months helped race organizers think better than to have a summer race.

He mandated the HPV vaccine for school girls. Not very libertarian of him. Luckily that fell through. He failed to veto a steroid testing bill which is testing high school kids for steroids, when there is clearly physical evidence to give clues to the abuse of steroids. The program is costing the state $6 million with about 24 in 150,000 kids testing positive. He also failed to veto a bill taxing tanning. Tanning is now a sin and deserves a sin tax associated with it. He had the chance to take a hard stance against illegal immigration and just kind of avoided it. He (and the legislature) also had the chance to stand up against the TSA airport searches but backed down when the federal government bullied their way in to that bill.

As you should know by now he used to be a democrat, running Al Gore's campaign here in Texas. Many of us would call him a RINO (Republican in name only) which I believe was formerly referred to as a 'country club republican.'

But here's the deal with politics. We the people (as a whole not every individual) vote for good looks and what we want to hear. I'm not sure how I don't fit that mold yet as I'm cute as can be and am saying what perhaps I wish you wanted to here. Though I'm sure it has to do with my thoughts on Social Security and Medicare. So Rick Perry has mastered the art of telling us what we want to hear. Don't believe me? He keeps getting re-elected in a state full of people disgruntled by him. His big opponent last election was supposed to be Kay Bailey Hutchinson and she barely made a showing because he was running against Obama and Washington the whole time. And she represented Washington. Even then when he 'wasn't running for president' (well he was claiming he wasn't going to run) he was running. As evidenced as he barely acknowledged Kay Bailey and didn't need to his whole campaign. Though unless you live in Texas you probably won't remember that he said he had no plans to run for president during that campaign. He said that because he knew most of Texas wasn't paying attention or didn't care. He's the ultimate politician which should make you all wary of him. He's better at being a politician than even Obama was. And I'd say Obama was a pretty good politician while he was running for president. You should be wary of such politicians. We all should be. What happens if our options are one formerly great politician against another even better politician??? Trust me, nothing good.

So get out in the primaries and vote for Lola!!! Because I'm not in the news so apparently I'm a sucky politician. Which is what you should want. Wake up People!!

The World Must be Coming to an End

2011-08-14T16:53:00.002-05:00

Why such a dramatic title to this post? For once I found an opinion of Roland Martin, CNN contributor, that I agree with. His August 12, 2012 article, Bachmann 'submission' question was offensive. Her response to the question was correct. And he is right that 'they' don't put religious beliefs of other candidates on trial. They picked a woman who has used the term submission and tried to trip her up with it because there's no room for 'submission' in leadership positions or in the White House. That has nothing to do with her or any other woman's religious belief about submission.

So to Roland Martin, kudos to you for expressing an opinion that might, just might be, the only opinion I will ever agree with you on. Let's take this one moment to celebrate that! Perhaps there's hope that you could agree with a young dog once.

Balance

2011-07-29T20:34:00.003-05:00

Am I the only one that finds the new Washington definition of balance to be ironic? Increase taxes and increase spending.

Mind you this is on both sides of the aisle. Because when $900 billion in cuts over 10 years is meant to offset an immediate $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling, the result is a net increase isn't it? Or did the laws of math change while I was sleeping?

More Evidence Making the Fair Tax a Logical Solution

2011-07-09T20:26:00.007-05:00

I don't know how many of you check PolitiFact.com or see their articles in the newspaper, but I just ran across one of their articles about a statement Senator John Cornyn from Texas made that they ranked True or Mostly True. Apparently as true as you can get on their 'truthometer.' The statement: "Fifty-one percent, that is, a majority of American households, paid no income tax in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada."

Read the article, but the part the really pisses me off is the part where 30% actually got money back from the government in 2009!!! Are you kidding me. No wonder we're in debt up to our great grand children's' ears. And I'm still young. Granted it goes on to say that appears to be a high for not paying income taxes but the projects for 2010 is 49.5% and for 2011 46.4% That's ridiculous! If the tax code didn't piss you off before, it should now.

I will bring up the Fair Tax again. The fair tax eliminates this ridiculous income tax that apparently only applies to half of the population, my family included. It replaces it with a national sales tax much like several states have in lieu of an income tax. That means everyone that shops in this great country of ours pays taxes. Legals, illegals, residents, visitors, rich, middle-class, poor. There's a provision to pre-bate the tax for food necessities to everyone. Hence the fairness factor. It doesn't discriminate against anyone. If you are receiving government assistance, you are at least paying some of it back when you spend. If you are rich out the wazoo and spending like a kid in a candy store, then there are no loopholes to keep you from paying taxes.

This takes the level of households taxed from 50% to 100% of the people in this country at any given time. So why can't democrats and republicans agree on this? Because they are both filled with power hungry politicians who realize that the fair tax takes some power away from them. Self-righteous sons of bitches!!!!

You should first read up on the Fair Tax and then write your representative and your senators and let them know you want them to support the Fair Tax.

The 2012 Republican Candidates

2011-06-26T16:00:00.004-05:00

So what do you think of the Republican candidates so far? They are in no particular order:

Newt Gingrich - Campaign over before it began

Ron Paul - Unrefined libertarian with clueless supporters. Though I personally agree with most of what he says.

Herman Cain - Too logical to win. Again agree with most of what he says and if I weren't running, he might be my man.

Michele Bachmann - Ok we get it, you fostered and birthed lots and lots of children. But I don't cast my vote based on that.

Tim Pawlenty - Yawn...

Mitt Romney - hmmm how's he going to live down Romney care that's not unlike Obama care except a proven failure. Though I much prefer a business man for president.

Rick Santorum - No opinion one way or the other which means I neither like nor dislike him and therefore he would have to make more of an impression on America to win.

John Huntsman - Again don't know enough about him one way or another to have an opinion about him yet.

There are also list of others that have either declared or still exploring that include a bunch of unknowns by me or have no chances including Jimmy McMillian of "The Rent is too Damn High" party. How that makes him a republican is beyond me. Unless it's by default since there's no room elsewhere. I thought starting his own party was not a bad idea though. We need another viable party. It's just not going to have that name if you ask me.

The only person that's really caught my attention so far is Herman Cain, the guy I think is not electable. So perhaps I should change my campaign slogan to "...because electable humans can't be trusted." What do you think about that?

Does anyone on the above list make you want to get out and vote? Might I add if there is one person up there that tickles your fancy, you must vote in the primary to get to vote for them at least once. If you get your way, you'll get to vote twice for the same person.

Weinergate 2011

2011-06-10T21:22:00.004-05:00

I know this is a deviation from the campaign, but this is what's dominating the news the last couple of weeks. So I thought this Weiner guy would go away as fast and he entered our lives, but apparently I was wrong. Surely I'm not the first one to use the term "weinergate". I just have better things to do than search the Internet for weiners for fear of what might come up on my computer.

What is he? A 14 year old girl? Seriously!! Who in their right mind sends naked pictures of themselves?? Normally I would say what he does on his own time with his own resources is his business. But do you really want a man with the bad judgement of a 14 year old girl making and voting on laws that affect you and your family? There are plenty of 14 year old girls that have better judgement than he does and their brains aren't fully developed. What's his excuse?

And what's with the word 'certitude'? Apparently it's a real word. From dictionary.com; 'freedom from doubt, especially in matters of faith or opinion; certainty.' Actions speak louder than words and he looks and sounds like a complete fool.

Lola's In for 2012!!!

2011-06-06T18:58:00.003-05:00

Apparently now is the time to announce one's candidacy for president. So in the event there was any doubt, I'm in!! I hope my campaign financiers will sponsor a bus tour for me and my family so I can get out and meet you all and kiss lots of babies. (That's how one wins right?)

Now which party's ticket am I running on? Well the Republicans are who's announcing or rumoring lately. The thing is I don't feel like a republican, but mostly because I don't believe any of them act what they preach on the campaign trail once they get into office. Rick Perry, rumored Republican candidate is a perfect example of this. I will go into more detail in the coming weeks if he officially puts his hat in the ring.

I could run as a libertarian, but we all know they get no where.

I can't run as a Democrat because as we are all aware from last elections that "liberal" is a bad word. That and I don't share most of their beliefs. Though we share a few that if talking on certain particular topics, one might think me a democrat. But I'm far from it.

I could run for the Green party nomination, but lets be honest, Ralph Nader has that locked up until he dies.

So I guess that leaves Independent. But here's the problem with that. When was the last time anyone other than a Democrat or a Republican got elected president? That said in order to make the point that neither party is living up to expectations, I'm going with Independent. Look at my platform page to see what I stand for.

A vote for Lola is a vote to take your country back. It's a vote for your liberty. It's a vote for personal pride. It's a vote against the lame humans that are screwing up this country's economy.

Waiting for Superman - A Must See

2011-03-06T15:51:00.003-06:00

So I might be a little late to see Waiting for Superman, but I believe everyone should see this documentary. It is a look into the quality of public education in the U.S. now, and I know the criticism when it came out was that it demonized teachers, the very heroes that educate our children, are under paid, etc etc etc. Though I didn't get that it demonized teachers at all. In fact it stood up for the good teachers that are under paid and do an excellent job of educating children.

The system is broke and is structured so that it is no longer putting children first. In just about any school you have to put up with the bad to get the good. Why can't they all be good? Why can't teachers be graded on their merits like employees in the real world? (By the way I believe all government employees should be terminated if their performance merits termination).

Rent the movie. Care about quality public education. After all, it's not free, you're paying out the wazoo for it whether you use it or not! At least bother to care about the service it's providing future adults that will be sustaining our economy, or become a drain on it.

The Truth about Texas Government

2011-02-09T17:49:00.006-06:00

So I've been on hiatus for quite awhile now. I haven't lost interest in my campaign, I've been busy caring for my mom while she grew and birthed my little sister who's now a month old. Now I'm busy protecting her too! That said it's time to get back to my day job.

So being from the great state of Texas, I'm going to talk about something that never seems to get talked about outside of Texas. Or maybe it does and I'm just not aware of it. Texas has always had articles talking about it's 'surplus' (which I find completely wrong that a surplus is retained in a 'rainy day fund' and isn't returned to the taxpayers), 'what Texas is doing right,' etc. etc. Many of you may have seen the great hair Governor Rick Perry traveling the country touting his book and talking about how great everything is in Texas, and trying to sound like a libertarian, while 'not running for president of the United States.'

What the great Rick Perry isn't talking about is the $25 Billion deficit that they must tackle in the current legislative session. He and Republicans insist this will be tackled 1. by not raising taxes, and 2. by not touching the rainy day fund. Suddenly Texas government is not so different from California's in the sense that they are writing checks their budgets and banks can't cash.

The solutions will have to come from the 3 biggest programs that make up the Texas budget.
1. Health and Human Services
2. Education
3. Higher Education

I'm all for deep cuts in these areas but here's the thing. Cuts made from the state budget result in cuts from federal funds received that help operate these programs. In Medicaid services, the expenditures are primarily for funds paid to providers. So cuts have to come in rates paid to providers and/or the number of clients services are provided to. This is not a popular choice for anyone. Though personally, I'm in favor of tougher eligibility requirements.

When it comes to Education, essentially this is paid for with property taxes whether you have kids in public school or not. If you've read through any of my posts, you'll see I'm all in favor of a voucher system. Eliminate the education bureaucracy and minimize the number of public schools available. Keep only the highest performing ones open and those that have enough voucher participants to stay open. I would also say operate all public schools as charter schools. Parents and students could choose where kids go to school. All schools would be operating as a business and if there is no demand for their services they would change or go away.

Education is also funded by the Texas lottery. Another thing that will get brought to the table is casino gambling. I'm all for this, but I would be shocked if this got approved as it's always been shot down in the past as immoral or whatever other stupid reasons they have to vote against it. They'd much rather people go to Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, rather than stay in or come to Texas. Gotta love the logic. Even if it did pass this session, it wouldn't do anything to help the current deficit as it would take a legislative cycle (2 years) to build and make a difference to the state's budget.

Higher education. These are freaking universities. Why aren't they self sufficient? They should have their own budgets made up of money out equals no more than money in. If they want more money they need to either raise tuition, increase the number of students allowed in or both. And/or they need to find other ways to generate revenue for the schools. There is no good reason, that anyone will convince me of, for Universities to be part of the state's budget. Though I'm sure many will disagree with me.

Anyways I just wanted to talk about the reality in Texas. It's not going to be a pretty session. It's going to be interesting to see how they 'solve' this. And I find it interesting how 'conservative' leadership got us to this deficit rather than plan for this last session when we already had an indication that the economy was headed for a recession.

How Was Your Tax Day?

2010-04-18T10:59:00.007-05:00

Did you throw a party this April 15? Do you enjoy getting taxed for your hard work? Isn't that an odd concept? Getting taxed for hard work? (or not so hard in some cases but profitable)

According to taxfoundation.org the percentage of non income tax payers is on the rise.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html

There's a 47% of non income tax payers rumor floating around out there for 2009 taxes. I don't know if that's true or not, but the above graphic should be of concern to you and here's why.

1. Baby boomers are all in the process of retiring or making plans to retire and while many of them have saved a nest egg for retirement, they will all still be planning to get their social security checks and medicare benefits while retired. If we have fewer people paying into the tax system than are relying on benefits and programs that income taxes pay for, we have an unsustainable system.

2. Unsustainable systems encourage and result in negative population growth which makes the number receiving services to paying for the services get larger and larger over time. See Europe as an example which has had this problem since 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline for more information and sources.

3. Where there is a decrease income to the federal government from income taxes, there are 2 options; Make cuts to programs and services (which I'm on board with across the board including Medicare and Medicaid) and/or increase taxes. We currently don't have leadership willing to make cuts across the board to everything. We as a nation are apparently to dependant on the Government to privatize social security. Look at your SS statement next time it comes in. Big cuts are on the way in just a few years if it doesn't get fixed.

4. If the health care bill that was passed doesn't get overturned and is successfully funded, that will mean a lot more people will be receiving services from the government which is funded by we the people left paying taxes. I don't know about you, but I already pay more than my fair share. I don't want to pay any more. Those of you willing to pay more than your fair share, go right ahead. There's no law against paying more.

These are just some examples of why this statistic should concern you. What is my solution you ask? Please visit http://www.fairtax.org/. The fair tax repeals the income tax established in the 16th amendment and instates a consumption tax. That means everyone that consumes pays taxes whether they are here legally or illegally, doing business within the law or under the table, earning currently taxable income or not, and receiving government services or not.

Article I Section. 8. of the U.S. Constitution
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The 16th Amendment was ratified by the states in 1913 allowing for collection of income tax. I don't know about you, but this amendment sounds unconstitutional to me.

A vote for Lola is a vote for sanity that has been long absent from our government.

We Should All Hold our Congressmen Accountable

2010-04-11T13:38:00.005-05:00

Some of you may or may not have seen or heard about this video. This is a citizen holding Frank LoBiondo, Republican from New Jersey, accountable for knowing the constitution as part of his job. He was elected in November of 1994 and has been 'serving' ever since. I do believe it's his job (and all congressmens' job regardless of party beliefs) to know the constitution they take an oath to uphold and defend.

The other part I like is the point he makes that it's our civic duty to know it. I'll admit I don't know it to the level of detail he does, but we should make an effort to read it on a regular basis to stay familiar with it so we can hold those accountable who are supposed to be representing us in Washington DC.

So if you need a refresher, here's the link to the U.S. Constitution. Read it...More than once.

So You Want to Know What I Think About the Health Care Bill

2010-03-28T15:25:00.008-05:00

I have been in mourning for the last few weeks in preparation for this day. Why? because I knew begging you to call and write your congressmen would do no good. Why? because if you have democratic congressmen most of them had no intention of listening to you unless you were for the health care bill. Though if I saw polls correctly only a slight majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to this bill.

Why?

Because over time we've become a society that slowly allows the government to take over our lives in the name of providing for us or in the name of safety, and after a little while we become used to and dependent upon those provisions and so we let them keep taking more and more of our tax dollars as long as they keep providing for our needs.

This is why I'm in mourning. I no longer believe that a majority of Americans care about liberty and freedom. I believe freedom loving Americans are in the minority and because of how our system is set up, we won't find actual representation in Washington unless we all move into the same districts and can elect our own representatives.

Don't tell me the Republicans are going to step up and represent us, because where were they on health care when they held the house and the senate in the 90's? They could have introduced and passed legislation to increase competition across state lines for health insurance and introduced legislation prohibits denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Then they could have put the parameters around pre-existing conditions that they could be subject to higher premiums or patient portions as negotiated between the patient and the insurance companies. But the republicans did nothing when they had the chance so don't tell me they are going to suddenly step up and start representing freedom loving Americans. Hannity and Limbaugh can sell it if they want, but I'm not buying. Running on repealing the legislation in November seems disingenuous to me.

Nancy Pelosi made some comment after the Health Care Bill passed comparing it to Social Security and Medicare passing. While I disagree with her view of it being a good thing, she's right. Social Security and Medicare are bankrupting this country and Health Care will be the nail in the bankruptcy coffin. Next time you get a social security statement in the mail read it.

This is from my statement received in February of this year:

"In 2016 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted* and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits...."

What do you think is going to happen with health care if the government is in charge of it? As it is, premiums will go up for everyone and/or insurance companies will go bankrupt until there's no one left but the government to bail us all out and that's how they'll get the 'universal coverage' they (and many Americans) want so badly.

Do I hope the Republican platform of repeal works in November? Sure I do, but here's how I would like to see it happen; All republicans that are up for re election get booted in their republican primary in favor of their opponent, whoever it is. Let's get rid of the old republican blood that is more than happy to spend our money on things like corporate bailouts and get fresh blood in there. If Sarah Palin were a real 'maverick' she'd be campaigning against John McCain instead of for him. Instead of campaigning for Rick Perry here in Texas for governor, she'd have campaigned for Debra Medina. Who is she you ask. Exactly my point. I will be voting for the libertarian candidate. Out with the old, in with the new.

Do American's Really Care About Civil Liberties?

2010-03-16T18:59:00.004-05:00

This didn't make headline news as far as I can tell. It was discussed on a local radio show. Politico.com is the source of the story and the major source talking about it. The only other sources I found talking about it upon a quick search were blogs that I don't follow.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html

Basically speaking Obama came out and supported a national database to store DNA of anyone arrested. Not those convicted of a crime, but those arrested. If the cops pulled you over and deemed you uncooperative or anything they feel like, they could arrest you and take your DNA and store it. Never mind that you didn't commit a crime nor had been charged. Even so are all crimes worthy of mandatory DNA sample?

Of course the argument is if we can save 1 person then it's worth it. And if you don't break the law you shouldn't worry about having a sample taken from you. Sure it starts there, but when you give them the right to take our DNA you are subject to corrupt politicians and law enforcement agents. Perhaps it is all well-intentioned in the beginning, but what happens 5 or 10 years down the road?

Over time we have given up much freedom in the name of safety. Look at 9/11 and the Patriot Act that resulted in the name of fighting terrorism. Perhaps it's only been used for legitimate terrorist threats, but perhaps some boundaries have been overstepped. Do you think the government is going to tell us?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Benjamin Franklin (1759)

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. David Hume (1711-1776)

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. John Adams (1735-1826)

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. Patrick Henry (1736-1739)

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

I'm just curious to know what you think? Do you think this is a big deal? Do you agree with it? Are you worried that 10 or 20 years down the road someone could come after you or your family planting your DNA on a crime scene either to get at you or because you won the unlucky lottery since someone was determined to pin a crime on someone. I know it sounds conspiracy theory, but how much liberty is too much to give up?

Your Tax Dollars Hard at Work During the Super Bowl

2010-02-07T19:56:00.003-06:00

In case you were too drunk or weren't paying attention. 3rd Quarter at 2 minutes to go, give or take, there was a commercial paid for by the U.S. Census Bureau filled with celebrities. I realize that they were B level or below celebrities, but still recognizable. But we all know the expensive part of the commercial was that it aired during the Super Bowl...

Are you Pissed off yet???

Your Tax Dollars Hard at Work

2010-01-19T18:35:00.004-06:00

Check it out...

Here's the link to the referenced report by CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/cbsnews_investigates/main6084364.shtml

In the grand scheme of things it might be a minor amount, but like the article says, every penny counts in an economy like this. Oh and if you bother to read the article, there's not one particular party guilty of the abuse. Remember politicians are equal opportunity offenders when it comes to spending your tax dollars. Whether they support or oppose something.

Contract From America

2010-01-11T19:29:00.003-06:00

Check it out.
http://www.contractfromamerica.com/

"Welcome to the Contract From America initiative, where you can join your fellow Americans in a collaborative grassroots effort to create a document that offers real change in Washington, D.C. and the state capitals. This website provides you with the opportunity to offer your innovative free market, limited government solutions to our nation’s pressing problems and to vote and comment on the ideas of others. We believe that the result of this grassroots-generated marketplace of ideas will be a document that not only represents the will of the American people, but promotes unique ideas that will breathe new life into the economic conservative movement...."

Here's what you'll find on this website
*Information on Tea Parties in your area
* Suggestion for solutions that you can vote on and/or rate
*Opportunity to submit new ideas that don't exist on the any of the lists
*Basically speaking the opportunity to express your voice

You might be interested to know the top five vote getting ideas are
1. Implement the Fair Tax
2. Legislation shall contain no unrelated amendments
3. Congressional Term Limits
4. Abolish the Department of Education
5. Pass Nationwide Medical Malpractice Tort Reform

I agree with these 5 though I'm not sure they are all in my personal top 5. The Fair Tax and term limits definitely are. What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Check out the rest of the list and the site. I encourage you to voice your opinions. Even if you don't agree with me point for point.

Dogs vs. Cats

2010-01-10T19:39:00.003-06:00

Are you a dog person, cat person, both, or neither. Believe i t or not here's an article on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582375,00.html

I like any animal that will play with me.

Here's the purpose of my post today while I brush up on what political events to get riled up over. I occasionally need to take a break from politics to reduce the stress and frustration in my life.

Christmas is a ridiculously popular time to get the kids a dog. As the article states dogs are more high maintenance than cats in that most of them need exercise. All family pets need interaction. Here's my plea. Only get a dog if you as the adult are willing to take on the responsibility for it. Your kids will learn from you how to care for animals. Puppies grow up and aren't nearly as appealing once they get bigger and have been around for awhile. If you expect the kids to be the only or primary interaction with the dogs, they will grow tired of them as their attentions drift often. You have to take responsibility for including the dog as part of the family on walks, for play, and on outings.

A few months from now, shelters and rescues will start getting calls to take dogs that families weren't prepared to deal with. Dogs like me that have so much energy that they didn't plan on dealing with. Dogs that the kids grow bored with and keep neglecting that mom and dad didn't really want to begin with. Dogs whose owners don't know how to train and discipline nor do they want to make the effort required to raise good dogs.

My plea to you is...if you got your kids a dog, rethink who you got the dog for and commit to taking responsibility for feeding, exercising, and making your dog part of the family rather than complaining about what a nuisance it is. Teach your kids how to properly care for a family pet. They mimic you. If you neglect your dog, they will learn to do the same thing.

Happy new year and happy doggy parenting! I got a new treadmill for Christmas which my parents highly recommend to those of you with high energy dogs. I love it.

I'll return shortly with more rants and raves about what's going on in this world. I don't think I have to state the obvious failed terror attempt. Though if it ignited terror in the hearts of people without slaughtering tons of people, is it really a failed terror attempt?

New Year's Resolution

2009-12-31T21:14:00.003-06:00

I've been on this earth for 2 years now and I think I'm old enough to make and keep a new year's resolution. This year, I resolve to get the career politician out of office regardless of what party they are affiliated with. If we all join together, we can successfully do this. If they've been in their office for 2 terms or more, vote them out. Vote for the independent or libertarian if you can't bring yourself to vote for a republican or democrat. But let's get them out. The system is set up so we can fire politicians if we want to. So instead of blindly voting for the incumbent, get them out of there!!!

That is my New Year's Resolution. What's yours?

Happy New Year!!! May you all have a blessed and wonderful 2010!

Merry Christmas from the Halls of Congress!!!

2009-12-23T19:12:00.003-06:00

Well tomorrow morning bright and early, before many of us are even awake, the Senate is going to pass their $871 Billion version of health care. While there is not public option in this version, how many of you want to go in the hole for an $871 Billion Christmas present?

Our only hope is that the House won't give in on not having a public option and that it ends up going no where. But I fear they are so desperate to pass something, that they'll come to a one sided agreement.

Never mind that a majority of us oppose this bill.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Never mind that they bought the 60th vote, and probably the 59th and 58th. I just haven't been paying as close attention to who 58 and 59 were and what they got for it.

We should all be ecstatic because after all, Christmas is about going further and further into debt right??? Remember to thank you Senators for their generous gift to you at your expense.

On a brighter note;

I Lola, do wish each and everyone of you a joyous Holidays with your families and friends. I hope you are all taking some extra vacation time over the next week and a half or so.

Doesn't Washington Have Better Things to Do?

2009-12-13T13:53:00.005-06:00

If you haven't heard, Texas representative Joe Barton introduced legislation that passed a house subcommittee regarding a playoff system in college football rather than the current Bowl Series that he says is "unfair."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isQ1DkWtlreF6Tk2_clHtHAzH0SQD9CFSMVO0
Let me take a quick side note to point out that LIFE ISN'T ALWAYS FAIR!!! Or Perfect!!! If it were, term limits would have been included in the Constitution. Though I might also add it was designed with the freedom to elect whomever you want in spite of your own ignorance.

Now back to the point of legislation about college football. Really!! They can't leave football alone. Though I shouldn't be surprised with all the interrogations of athletes in recent years.
They can't leave any aspect of our lives alone!

Never mind whether or not you agree or disagree with the notion of playoff system in college football. The idea of the government meddling in sports is preposterous. And while I should be glad that it distracts them from various legislation that is costing us more and more money everyday, I'm furious that they act as if they have the right to interfere whenever and wherever they want in our live. I'm even more furious that we let them or perhaps many of us want them too interfere.

I also think legislation like this is a smoke screen for Americans so they can get distracted in their support or fury of it, from such decisions that we should be furiously working to stop. For example;
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091203-714257.html
There are billions of unused or paid back TARP funds. Which let me remind you the entire amount is debt to all of us. Rather than pay back the unused debt, the administration is considering using is to help aid the labor market. That is what the stimulus was supposed to do and rather than cut $700Billion in debt in half or close to it, they want to continue to spend that money. I know that makes sense to a lot of people who live their lives in debt, but let me remind you it's illogical, shameful, and immoral to send this country and its citizens into the debt they already have.

Optimal Method of Charity?

2009-12-06T13:04:00.006-06:00

So the Christmas season is upon us and for many from thanksgiving through now is the only time of the year they are charitable since this seems to be the time of year that its ok to ask for donations to food banks and for donations to needy families that can't afford food much more a great Christmas. For others charitable giving is a year round habit and possibly increased around this time of the year.

This brings up an interesting point in the realm of politics, and I'm really curious to know what the general public thinks about this issue. Unfortunately this little blog doesn't get nearly the feed back to determine what the general public thinks. None-the-less, I'd like to know what those of you reading this think?

The government collects billions (or is it trillions now?) of tax dollars every year for programs that many likely view as charitable. Here's the problem. The government doesn't set up incentives to lower the cost of operations of various programs and supporting departments. They are given budgets, and if they don't spend it, they loose it the next year and have no hope of asking for a bigger budget either.

On the other hand one, must be ware of charities. Not all are as thrifty as they claim to be. Or they have overhead that's likely as heavy as the governments. Or they could be quasi-governmental in that they operate from government grants. Which adds a 2nd level of overhead to the money given to needy people. However if you research the charity, you'll find some great ones with relatively fixed and low overhead from year to year and the more money they collect, the more good they can do with it.

So I want to know, what's your preferred method of charity? To let the government handle it in spite of low efficiencies, or to do your research and find charities that give most if not all of their money towards the people, animals, or causes in need? I'm sure you can guess my preferred method.

Oh No!!!

2009-11-22T18:49:00.004-06:00

Sorry about the title. It's my sarcastic way of adding to the hysteria over the Saturday night vote.

Let me tell you why the sarcasm. That vote was just to continue debating or not about the bill. Yeah Yeah Republicans didn't have any input in the bill. Well if you refuse to debate about it, you certainly won't get your points across.

I agree I don't want the bill to pass either but debate is debate and you better start debating it! That's your job!! So stop whining and start debating.

What I find interesting is how the following NY Times article talks about the cost of the Senate bill at $800+Billion like it's a bargain over the $1.03 Trillion House bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/health/policy/20health.html?_r=2&ref=health
Keep in mind that the federal government couldn't accurately estimate or even over estimate the cost of something like this. Trust me, it's well underestimated.

But who among us can actually imagine $800 billion? Let me break it down for you.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
At the time of this post, the U.S. population is listed at 307,996,114. Keep in mind that number is not working adults only. It includes children, retirees, stay at home moms, the unemployed, etc etc. That comes out to more than $2,597 per person. So if your family has 2 people think $5,200 or for a family of 4 more than $10,400. That's on top of the taxes you currently pay for this that and the other government programs. But don't forget you have to pay for those people that aren't contributing tax dollars. So add some more money onto your family's total to cover their share.

I'm just saying $800 billion is NOT a bargain for health care that they say is only going to cover 31 million people as opposed to the Houses versions 36 million. So they expect me to believe that only about 11% of the population is going to need the governments help? What do they think I'm stupid? I guess they aren't concerned about me though, just about the masses.

On a related note, if you don't think senator's votes on specific pieces of legislation aren't bought.
Check this out how Senator Mary Landrieu's vote to support the health care bill was purchased.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Don't think your Senator can be bought on either side of the aisle? I'd like to remind you of TARP and the "Stimulus" bills.

Call your senators. Call other senators. Or Write them. Tell them what you think.

Fascism

2009-11-15T17:16:00.004-06:00

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert on Fascism. All I know is that Mussolini was a fascist, and I believe he was considered to be some sort of dictator. But I couldn't tell you what about his political policies made him a fascist. So I will be providing you with resources to study up on it as I will do as I put this post together.

From Websters:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

For more clarity on what fascism is, this is a very good in depth explanation of it. The whole article is worth reading. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
"...Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions."

People (I'm not sure who these "people" are) like to equate Socialism to far left and Fascism to far right ideology. Where I sense they are relatively the same thing with fascism being easier to accomplish as it pulls the wool over the eyes of the sheep blindly following the government that is selling it, as the sheep pump their fists and demand the government take care of their needs.

I don't know if we should technically be worried about our country headed for fascism or socialism. I don't think it matters which one since they are both trying to accomplish Utopian societies in the eyes of their supporters. I do think we shouldn't trust any group of people (politicians) that are motivated by power, that want to "provide for our needs"with our money and not theirs. Though they seem to think what's ours is theirs to do with as they please. Utopia on earth can't be accomplished while man is running the place.

Health Care Passed the House

2009-11-08T07:04:00.007-06:00

Well if you were sleeping last night and didn't hear the news, the House passed their version of "health care reform."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

From the article: "Nancy Pelosi compared the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later."

I agree with that, just maybe not with the joy behind it that she most likely has. Two entitlement programs that are contributing to the bankruptcy of this country. If you essentially extend Medicare to the entire county, it will speed that up. I'd like to know how comfortable you all are with putting this burden on my generation and the generations to follow? They keep extending out the "retirement" age to receive social security and Medicare benefits. Robbing from the future to get what you want now.

Now that everyone has been depending on Social Security and Medicare for so long, you wouldn't get anyone to touch eliminating those entitlements on either side of the aisle. I'm guessing 80-90% of most Americans would be opposed to privatizing both since they've been paying in already they've learned to "trust" that the government will continue to send them a check every month and pay for their Medicare needs. What many of you may not realize about the "free" entitled part of Medicare. It only applies to in patient coverage. If you want Medicare out patient benefits, you have to buy into it, and yet it's still bankrupting us. Why do you think that is? Because there's no incentive to run it efficiently. If they are short on money, congress will just increase the budget for it.

That's how they are going to get this passed if it passes. They are going to call it an extension of Medicare to all which everyone is under the illusion it works so well for seniors while alienating the care to seniors by cutting the budget to them. I'm all for cutting that budget, but let's be real; we're just moving money from one group of people to another and then spending more on that new group of people. So where's the savings? Where's the money in my pocket? They keep taking it. And no one seems to care that any of us are pissed off about it. Because when it comes down to it, 90% or more of people may not want the government to spend money on this, but they certainly want them to spend money on their special interest, whatever that may be.

Whatever happened to the basics of infrastructure (roads, highways, bridges) and and army for defense? Whatever happened to the freedom to take care of ourselves as we see fit? When did it become appropriate to demand the government take care of our personal lives?

If you oppose this bill, you still have time to voice your opinion as it's not in the hands of the Senate. Call and write your senators and the senators of other states. Let them know their jobs depend on it. And then vote them out next time anyways. Let's impose term limits on all of them. They shouldn't be able to make a career out of spending our money.

On a bright note, apparently this version has no chance in the Senate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
Doesn't matter, keep hounding your sentators and others and then vote them out!! I'm not kidding about imposing term limits on them. That's our job!

Are You Happy With What is Going on in Washington?

2009-11-01T18:16:00.004-06:00

The reason for the title is because I have two topics I'd like to discuss in this post. I just got back from a short vacation and had no time to discuss both points as they came up at the end of last week.

1st topic: Hate Crime Law and the Defense bill.

So in case you weren't paying attention last week homosexuality got added as a defined "hate crime." I'm not going to go into further details that crime done against anyone regardless of race, gender, beliefs, sexual preference, etc is hateful and so the term "Hate Crime" is somewhat redundant from my point of view or it should apply to all victims of crime, not just defined groups. My real point is to discuss how something like this gets tacked onto the defense bill, which is defined (by me) as the bill to outline the defense of our country. What does a qualifying group of people that get hate crime designation have to do with the defense of our our country?

I'm not opposed to discussing/proposing such a bill in legislation that is in the same category, such as crime. But this goes on all the time with various bills and what really offends me is when they tack on what was commonly referred to as "pork" during the last campaign, to a bill that will pass that has nothing to do with the "pork" item, just to get it through since it might not pass otherwise. This is part of the dirty deal making that happens in congress that must stop!!

I propose that bills must stay on topic. Perhaps they'd all be shorter. I doubt it, since they want to drone on long enough so that no one will bother to read them.

Topic 2: Cash For Clunkers, Success or Failure?

Not too long ago I posted on what defined the success or failure of the cash for clunkers program. On Thursday Edumunds.com posted what I would consider to be my definition of success or failure of it.

If you haven't read the article, check it out.
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html

Basically speaking, they determined that as of a result of the program 125,000 additional vehicles were sold as a result of the program. All other vehicles purchased during the program would have been purchased whether they got the rebate applied to their new purchase or not.
The program cost a total of $3 billion. That comes out to $24,000/additional car sold.

To be fair they did determine that some people that were going to purchase cars had no intentions of trading in an old car, but this isn't quantified, nor are the reasons stated for why they wouldn't have traded in that old car. So this may or may not provide evidence supporting environmental successes.

So what do you think now? Is spending $24,000 per additional car sold worth it to you? Have you changed your mind on the success or failure of the program? Do you find this indicative of how the government runs things? I do.

I would like to see the same analysis done on the new home rebate program. And yet they intend to extend this. (If they didn't already do it while I was gone.)

Do you really want them in charge of health care? Let me know what you think about all of this.

Death Penalty Controversy

2009-10-22T19:22:00.005-05:00

There has been much controversy as of late in Texas. Do a search and you can find all sorts of information about it. Being from Texas I'm not immune to the reputation it has of being the leader in the country of executions. Over the last couple of years, DNA evidence has exonerated several death row inmates and now the state is paying restitution to them. This is costing the state ridiculous amounts of money on top of the money spent to try them and fight the numerous appeals they went through.

Here's what I think. I am not opposed to the death penalty, however it should only be eligible for criminals that are found guilty with DNA and/or conclusive video or witnessed evidence. If someone is found guilty without such evidence, then the death penalty should NOT be on the table for their sentence. If they do have such evidence that no appeals would result in overturning that conviction and they have been sentenced to death, then the sentence should be carried out swiftly.

What are your thoughts? Are you Anti-Death Penalty in all circumstances? Pro-Death Penalty? If so under what circumstances are you pro? Would you vote for or against a politician solely for his or her stance on the death penalty?

What's More Peaceful than a Dog?

2009-10-11T13:20:00.004-05:00

Apparently President Obama is, who might I add was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before even taking office. Does anyone take these nominations/wins seriously? As Saturday Night Live so eloquently put it last night, he won for "not being Bush." Do you think he would have still won if he hadn't gotten elected? As a message to us that he is the one the Nobel Peace panel thinks should have been elected?

I'd also like to know how a global warming presentation, filled with some lies, is an effort at world peace.

I don't really care who wins the Nobel Peace Prize, it just seems to make a mockery when you give it out because of political ideals rather than peaceful actions. I don't think words are the same thing as actions. Especially since I don't see a drop in the efforts of terrorists around the world.

I do think my species is doing more for world peace than a bunch of speeches. What's more peaceful than a sweet dog? We open up the lines of communication. We soften the hearts of the hard. We bring comfort in pain and suffering. Break down barriers. I hope a dog wins next year.

Oh I also find it interesting that he's giving the prize money to charity. I agree with that decision and think it's the right thing to do in his position. But isn't he in the party that thinks government not charity is the answer to all your problems? Unless the charity he's giving it to turns out to be the government. At least be consistent. Personally I'd prefer to let charities rather than government hand out the majority of the assistance. The overhead is much greater when the government hands out the money.

Michael Moore - A Prosperous Hypocrite

2009-10-04T15:15:00.004-05:00

I don't really know why I'm wasting a perfectly good post on this guy, but I think it's because I'm curious as to whether or not his hypocrisy is seen by all, or just some. Let's take his latest "documentary" for example "Capitalism: A Love Story." While I tend to agree with his hate of bail outs to AIG as shown in the previews, his overall theme of capitalism is evil, I take great exception to.

But the point of this post is not why I disagree with him. I've had plenty of posts that ought to cover that. If not, I'll be happy to write more. Most non-government workers can thank capitalism for their jobs. While government workers can thank regulation for theirs.

So if Michael Moore really hated capitalism, what should he do with all of the money he earns? Yes I said earn since he's producing a product that sells, even if only to a niche audience sometimes. He makes way more than I do. Shouldn't he hand it all over to the government to redistribute as they see appropriate? What should be done with it by his point of view?

I've got a thought. We have a large homeless population that panhandle to get enough money for their next fix here in Austin. Perhaps he should build a group home for them and single handedly support their laziness and their drug habits so they don't have to go to work like he does and they can stop panhandling from us. He can work for them. But if they get busted for panhandling, it's on him because he's agreeing (hypothetically) to provide their basic needs that they don't even seem motivated to provide for legitimately, which for them is food, shelter, and drugs or alcohol.

If he did this and lived in a modest middle class neighborhood, I wouldn't jump on him for his anti-capitalism rhetoric and point out his hypocrisy. I first read of his hypocrisy in the book "Do as I Say (Not as I do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." It's actually very interesting and a recommended read. I'm not saying there's not conservative hypocrisy. We hear about it all the time the minute it happens. We don't always hear of the liberal hypocrisy. Though I think life time politicians on either side of the aisle are walking examples of hypocrisy regardless of what does or does not make the 6:00 news.

I'd like to know your thoughts. Do you plan to see his movie? Do you agree that capitalism does more harm than good? And if Michael Moore makes money from his own capitalistic ventures, what should be done with that money after his basic needs are met?

Mandated Health Insureance a Tax Increase on the Middle Class?

2009-09-20T16:10:00.004-05:00

You Decide

President Obama spoke with George Stephanopoulos. He claims the fact that George looked up the definition of tax in the dictionary is proof that's he's stretching that claim.

What do you think?

What I don't believe is that no matter how much he says it will be deficit neutral, there's no way in hell for that to happen. So I'd like to know how the president defines deficit neutral.

Government Waste and Abuse

2009-09-13T15:34:00.003-05:00

I suppose pointing out and discussing waste and abuse of our tax dollars by our government is a bit cliche by now, but I find it my duty to point out things that never even make headline news or talk radio. If this did, I missed it. The likelihood is that very few if anyone knows about this, probably because the amount is small enough that it may not be worth discussing. But a bunch of amounts like this add up to a lot! We should all be furious and demand accountability from those responsible for these decisions.

WTO OKs $295 million in Brazilian sanctions on US

This was considered low to the $2.5 billion Brazil was seeking. The reason for the sanctions.

"Monday's ruling was the fifth major decision since the Brazilian government brought the case to the WTO in 2002, alleging that the U.S. was able to retain its place as the world's second-largest cotton producer by paying out some $3 billion to American farmers each year. China is the largest exporter of cotton, while Brazil is fifth."

So here's my point, $3billion of farm subsidies, which is a waste to those of us that aren't farmers is costing the U.S. another almost$300 million. $3.3billion down the drain or mismanaged by our "heroes" in Washington. If you can't make a living as a cotton farmer, then you should find a job that you can make money at. You don't want to get me started on my farm subsidies rant.

This is only one example of waste and abuse. I'll be there are hundreds of "small" examples like this that get swept under the rug because we don't care enough to hold them accountable because it would be a hassle or interference on our lives. I will share them with you as I find them.

The Health Care Debate Continues

2009-08-30T13:25:00.003-05:00

As time moves on, the health care debate does too. And all we see is the passionate debate for or against it, with no real discussion of what's broke about the system and what specific aspects that need fixing. It seems that there are 2 schools of thought; Government run health care or increase insurance competition without the government entering the business. HR 3400 is the Republican solution to health care which simply put, has tax credit provisions for maintaining health insurance, and allows for small businesses to pool into groups to purchase insurance for their employees at large group rates, and more blah blah blah about fraud waste and abuse and so on.

Let me tell you something, when you have a middle man administrating the care whether it's the government, in the case of Medicare and Medicaid, or the private sector in the case of all other insurance, rates are predetermined/negotiated. Which means the insurance company or the government tells the provider how much they will pay them for a certain service or procedure regardless of cost. A set up like this encourages fraud waste and abuse on so many levels. Meaning a doctor sees a patient and takes the opportunity to run all sorts of tests and procedures, ordinarily unnecessary but particularly if it is of no harm to the patient in order to increase their reimbursement. All they have to do is justify it medically, and when you are an expert in the game you can justify anything. This is especially easy to do and difficult to prove on older patients or if the patient makes any comment that could be construed to justify ordering this or that, which is another billable item.

What I am trying to say is that as long as there is a intermediary that must employ doctors, nurses and administrative personnel to administer payment on behalf of the patient, fraud waste and abuse will continue. Do you not find it fraudulent that insurance companies can deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition? But they can. This is the issue I think Americans can agree on and where we ought to start. That doesn't mean these patients might not have to pay higher premiums or higher deductibles or co-insurance.

Let's be honest, the fact that we pay premiums just means that insurance is just a payment plan for our routine medical care that is expected to even out over time. How else is an insurance company going to make money? For example. My parents were without health insurance when they first got married, by choice. They could have paid for it, but money was tight and it was a risk they chose to take since they are both very healthy. About a year later, dad went to the ER for kidney stones. They paid the discount they were offered to pay in full at the time of service. (All facilities offer this probably doctors too, some just make you ask for it) Calculated out, it cost about what insurance premiums and a deductible would have cost them for the time period of being uninsured. Had they put that money in savings every month, they would have had that money at the time of service instead of having to put it on a credit card.

I will say it again, if doctors and patients ban together to cut out the middle man, whether the government or insurance companies and take back personal responsibility for our health care, (dare I say live healthy lives?) I bet the cost of care would drop dramatically because doctors wouldn't have to employ staff or pay agencies to bill and collect from insurance companies. They could just collect the full amount up front at the time of service and I bet it would be lower than the "negotiated rates" they get from insurance companies or Medicare because Doctors and facilities would truly have to compete for your business. See my previous post about this issue on July 12. But I know 90% or you or more will likely disagree with me on this issue just like 90% of America is going to disagree with me about privatizing social security.

My point of this post is rather than each side insisting on their solution and their solution only, both of which only treats the symptoms, how about we think outside the box and treat the problem. At the very least, let's focus on 1 part of the system that we can all likely agree on (preexisting denial, or perhaps something else) and start there if the majority don't really want to treat the problem. As it is it just seems like a political power grab taking freedom from you and me the consumers.

Cash for Clunkers - What Do You Think?

2009-08-23T16:19:00.003-05:00

No doubt many if not all of you have heard about the cash for clunkers program that is about to end after this weekend. Some of you may have even used the opportunity to get a new car. My question to you is, did you see it as a successful program?

The reason I ask is you have to consider what the point of the program was to decide it if was successful or not. Was it to improve the environment? Was it to filter more money to the auto companies? And if so, how much of that money have they gotten? Was the purpose something else?

My next question is how many, if any, of the new cars purchased do you think will be repossessed in the near future? If any are repossessed, does that change your opinion of whether or not it was a success or failure? Does it matter if the money went directly to the car companies or those that purchased the cars?

I don't quite know where the money came from. I just assume that since I didn't have a car to trade in, I'm somehow paying for it. Which I obviously don't care for. I can think of better ways to handle this, but again, it really depends what the point of the program was.

Just curious to hear other assessments of the program.

Swiss Banks Strike a Deal With the U.S. Government

2009-08-16T12:45:00.005-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/us-swiss-cement-deal-on-s_n_257496.html

I'm not sure how many of you know about this or even care about this, but basically speaking we all know that people have been able to move money to Swiss bank accounts in an effort to protect their assets from tax policies that would be levied against them by holding them here in America. Basically the deal involves Swiss banks revealing the records for 52,000 Americans suspected of nearly $15 Billion in assets be held in Swiss banks and not American banks. Obviously the plan is to penalize them by levying heavy fines or taxes or whatever against them to help raise money for the government and sticking it to the "evil rich" on behalf of us little people.

I have 2 points to make. First, what to you want to bet that certain politicians and/or the associates in their back pockets are NOT on that list?

Second, are we not concerned about the American economic policies that are causing these people to send $15 Billion overseas? So you fine them for "not paying taxes" or whatever, but do they have to bring that money back here? Wouldn't it be better if that $15 Billion had been in American banks this whole time stimulating the American economy? And is fining them going to make them want to bring their money back here? While I completely disagree with dodging taxes, we have tax policies that encourage finding loopholes. Here's an unoriginal thought, fix the economic and tax policies that cause them store their money elsewhere. Be the tax haven that they want to encourage them to invest in their own economy. That money staying over here will do more to stimulate this economy than bailing out corporations and banks.

The Fair Tax is one solution, but I'm sure there other solutions that would keep power in the hands of the politicians (insert sarcasm because decreased politician power is why the Fair Tax won't pass), while being a tax haven that encourages investment in the American economy.

What's your take?

President Obama Just Made My Last Point

2009-08-13T20:33:00.003-05:00

Without intending to, President Obama just made the same point of my last post. Check it out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul

"As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said."

"'They do it all the time,'" he said. "'UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems.'"

Seriously, do you want the government running your health care?

Something the Government Has a Monopoly on is a Risk???

2009-08-09T16:04:00.008-05:00

This has been going on for awhile now but I haven't seen much discussion about it in the blogosphere. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) released their report a few weeks ago putting the U.S. Post Office on its "high-risk" list. What does this mean?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09937sp.pdf

"There are serious and significant structural financial challenges currently facing the Postal Service...."

"Mail volume fell by 9.5 billion pieces in fiscal year 2008 to a total of 203 billion pieces and is projected to fall by 28 billion pieces in fiscal year 2009 to a total of 175 billion pieces. USPS expects mail volume and revenue to continue declining next year, and flat or continued volume decline over the next 5 years. USPS projects a net loss of $7 billion this fiscal year, with outstanding debt increasing to over $10 billion, and a cash shortfall of about $1 billion. USPS also expects that its projected losses will continue in fiscal year 2010."

I don't know about you all, but 90% of our mail is junk mail that we may or may not look at. Even if those sending it don't define it as junk mail. That doesn't count bills. Bills fall in the 10% category for us, though many are foregoing bills sent in the mail so they can be notified by email, or have it automatically drafted from their checking account once a month. We pay as many of our bills by credit card to rack up the points as we are allowed to pay that way and make one payment to our credit card a month. This reduces our personal use of the USPS as well as many others we know. Between automatic bank drafts and consolidation of bill payment, and contacting each other by email when ever we feel like it, demand for the USPS has dropped.

So the USPS, which if you didn't know is run by the federal government, can't find a way to remain profitable. Is that a surprise to anyone? So let me ask you this, are you willing to pay more taxes so that the USPS can remain a viable business in spite of decreased demand and so that all those postal workers can keep their jobs?

I leave you with this; do you want the same government who couldn't keep the USPS a viable business running your health care? Making decisions about your life?

Beer Summit

2009-08-02T14:20:00.005-05:00

Is it just me or does something called a "Beer Summit" actually dominating the news and talk shows the last week or so seem like a successful fraternity prank? Or a dream come true to the beer companies that were mentioned over and over as the beers of choice in countless articles and TV programs? What was the point?

I mean doesn't the president have more important things to do than to "mediate" a meeting of two people that probably didn't care to see each other ever again. One of whom by some accounts still expected an apology from someone doing his job responding to a call that was made by someone, who ironically was looking out for the best interest of a neighbor and trying to protect his property.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/07/30/news/news-us-obama-race.html

Oh, but you may say, "Lola, that's your skewed slant on the story." Is it?

Fact: the neighbor saw someone who appeared to be forcibly entering a home in her neighborhood rather than entering with ease as if he owned the place. I'm sure he wasn't looking around for her to see his face either.

Fact: She called the police as it's never recommended to confront a potential criminal yourself.

Fact: The police responded to a call about a suspected break in.

What happened from there I can't attest as a fact since I wasn't a witness. But do you or do you not want your neighbors to call the police when they suspect someone is breaking into your home? And do you or do you not want the police to do their job and protect your home when called? And should they not be reasonably suspicious if you don't have the keys to your own house? Or should that be the new standard? No keys, breaking into the house normal...Do you think being rude and belligerent or polite and respectful to a cop will get you what you want.

So the result of the "summit" according to the above article from Reuters;
"'I think what you had today was two gentlemen who agreed to disagree on a particular issue,' Crowley told reporters." Again I say, what was the point? Was the point to convince Gates that he overreacted? Or was the point to convince Crowley he was wrong? It's a shame that Gates and Obama made this about race. I don't believe most reasonable people believe it was about anything other than this cop doing his job as he was trained to do. That fact that it came down to agreeing to disagree seems to make the whole thing an exercise in futility to save face for Obama for stupidly making a statement without having the facts. "I have no comment until I have the facts" (more or less) should be a standard response when unaware of the facts. Maybe this was a lesson learned for him. What I don't know is if he understands the part he played in perpetuating the "race card" that so many people have been trying to squash for years, even after he was elected to the highest office in the country.

"'I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart,' Obama said in a statement after the meeting in a garden outside the Oval Office."

"I am confident that has happened here tonight, and I am hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode."

I'd like to know what everyone's lesson was from this episode, especially after Crowley's statement. Is agreeing to disagree a positive outcome of this meeting? Perhaps the follow-up "Beer Summit" should be with Bill Cosby.

What's your opinion?

What's Texas Doing Right?

2009-07-26T13:04:00.004-05:00

Is Texas doing something right that California and other states aren't?

I was sent an article from the national review but as I haven't figured out how to upload I file for you and the National Review requires you to pay to be a subscriber to their magazine, I went searching and found the article reprinted with permission on Rick Perry's website. I encourage you to read it.
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/13234/

It points out that while Texas is feeling the effects of the recession or the slow down of the economy, it's effects are minimal compared to the states that have been hit hardest. It points out that we still have manufacturing thriving while Detroit has been hit hard. It points out that there is a mass migration from California while their government workers are taking IOUs as they attempt to balance the budget. Texas went into this recession with a surplus to the budget which will help ease the pain of the recession.

Texas has no state income tax. We have sales tax. Texas essentially operates as an example of the way the fair tax is meant to, by taxing everyone that makes purchases here. Legal or illegal, resident or visiting. So these people using our programs, whether they should or shouldn't be, are still paying into our system some way shape or form even if they aren't paying their emergency room bills.

This article makes the much hated Rick Perry look like a genius. He's running for reelection in 2010 and if he wins will be the longest serving governor in Texas history. While he is despised, the much despised and loved (depending on who you talk to) Kay Bailey Hutchinson will be challenging him. I'm on the despising side since she voted for the first bailout before Bush left office. I wrote her and told her not to. She won't be getting my vote for governor. I'll likely vote for the libertarian running, though I've heard a 3rd republican has thrown her hat in the race that is supposedly endorsed by Ron Paul. I have yet to check her out. Maybe she will prove worthy of my vote. Rick Perry and Texas is your classic nanny state. They passed a steroid testing bill in 2007 for Texas high schools that cost several million dollars a year or so that has turned up few positive tests. Aren't there physical signs to steroid abuse that could be the trigger to test someone rather than random testing? Anyways there are many other nanny state bills that he hasn't vetoed that make him unpopular. The term country club republican applies to him and Kay Bailey.

That said while there are a economic positives, Texas has a high uninsured rate. Page 5 of this report shows the stats by poverty rate and by citizenship status. One thing that pops out to me is that 60% of non citizens are uninsured compared to 20.4% of natives and 32.9% of naturalized. You can see that 20% of natives is still a larger number than the other two groups. This is obviously a problem. But we have to start some where. I'm guessing there are laws that could be enforced for the 60% of non-citizens if they don't pay their bills when they go to the doctor or emergency room. They should be deported immediately. Maybe an expert out there knows if this is a currently enforceable law or not. If it's not, then this is one place to start.

What those stats don't address is the rates of delinquent health related bills by poverty group or citizenship status. Is one group offending more than another. It's one thing to be uninsured and not utilizing or paying cash for your health care, but it's quite another to be going to the ER once a week with no intention of ever paying your bill. What I do see is a lot of people choosing not to purchase health insurance 2.5 million people are making 200%+ of the poverty level and yet they are still uninsured. "More than 1.7 million uninsured Texans live in families with incomes above $50,000." I've stated before on here, from experience these people have cable or satellite and cell phones among other luxuries.

Some possible solutions to this problem:
-Debtors prison (work your debt off)
-Revoke visas or citizenship to non natives who allow a bill to become delinquent and deport them immediately
-See my previous post from July 12 for a move in the right direction
-Fair Tax - collects taxes from all offenders that spend any money - perhaps states could set up free clinics as a result and attract doctors by paying their medical school bills in exchange for lower salary and a 4 year commitment. That way people have a choice in free health care if they really want it. Or they can pay for it themselves.

Why can't we start with some of these ideas before allowing the government to take more and more of our hard earned money?

So is Texas an example for the rest of the country? Yes but it's not the only state. We just happen to be the 15th largest economy in the world (from the above referenced article from NR). So it stands out more than others. We have 6 of the 25 largest cities in this country, which is more than any other state has. Texas is growing while other states are shrinking. So while our unemployment rate may be increasing as a result of the recession, it's still one of the lowest in the country all while working with a migration from other states.

Do You Agree With the Polls?

2009-07-19T20:00:00.006-05:00

Poll information from FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
Which I also found on Real Clear Politics Website which averages the various poll results.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

RCP Poll
President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average: +18.2% Details
Approve 56.2%
Disapprove 38.0%

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average: -25.3% Details
Approve 32.0%
Disapprove 57.3%

Direction of Country
RCP Average: -19.4% Details
Right Direction 36.2%
Wrong Track 55.6%

I can tell you where I stand on each of these. I highly disapprove of the congress job approval and direction of the country, which have been clearly directed and supported by the President.

Here's the problem, when anyone is in office, be it congress or the president, they feel they have the right and duty based on the fact that they won an election to make decisions they think are best for us and this country, even if it's not what we the people want. We do have an opportunity here people to judge their work. It's called voting them out of office at all cost. Listen. Not every democrat is bad and not every republican is bad, just like they aren't all good on either side. Perhaps another party will emerge, or perhaps "decent" politicians will continue to choose the existing two parties. But in order for "decent" candidates to be considered, we have to get out of our mindset of only supporting Democrats or Republicans and get into the mindset of supporting those candidates who will listen to us even if they don't always agree with us. Even if that decent candidate isn't backed by the 2 major parties.

A Move in the Right Direction for Health Care

2009-07-12T16:02:00.004-05:00

Health care is the big item on the White House agenda as of late. It's the hot topic we knew they were going to tackle ASAP and if they get their way, increases the power and influence of government in all of our lives. In my March 31, 2009 post I discussed a need for health care to move away from the current insurance system. This would take providers developing and alternative to working with insurance companies in much the same way Walmart has lead the way for low prices on generic drugs.

On Tuesday July 7, I found this article on msnbc.com. Take some time to read it as it is a great example of where I think health care should go.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31777054/ns/health-health_care/

Basically it discusses a Seattle Clinic that was started by doctors tired of dealing with insurance companies. The attract new doctors by offering stock options. They offer care to patients from $39-$119 a month depending on age and level of insurance. No one is rejected for preexisting conditions. It also covers round the clock unrestricted care and 30-minute appointments

It doesn't cover catastrophic care, but the article reports that a 30 year old person could expect to pay $133 per month for such coverage. Obviously that goes up with age.

Here's the thing, my employer sponsored premium is $350/month. They cover that but I have to pay deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays. Every time I go to the doctor I pay $20 or $30 for a specialist. Just think, if my employer didn't have to pay $350 for my insurance and instead gave me a $350 raise to go out and buy my own insurance, the least I could pay anywhere from $172 - $252 a month for coverage. This leaves me an extra $100/month plus any of my copays and coinsurance to cover any medication I might need on occasion, or lab work that I usually have only once a year, or anything else that might not be covered in the services offered by their clinic.

This is a link to the clinic's services that they offer.
http://www.qliance.com/services.html
And while they don't offer all specialty services, they do offer the basic preventative care and disease management which is what most people are needing. They are an example of how specialty care providers could get together and offer their specialty services refusing to work with insurance. Prenatal and maternity care come to mind. Although I know from a previous job that many doctors and providers already have reduced rates for those paying cash for these services. But people always think they need insurance. Radiology groups could refuse to deal with insurance which greatly reduces the staff they need to run the business office, which reduces the costs to you the patient. I'm sure if they put their heads together they could come up with even more ways to reduce your costs, and to encourage people to use their services every once in awhile to help reduce costs over time.

In reality, insurance is just a method of prepaying for services you will use. But we have become so accustomed to our employers providing us insurance or the government doing these things for us that we don't want the responsibility of saving that $200-$300/month just for health care expenses. Trust me people you don't want the government in charge of your health care. If you want health care bad enough, if it becomes a priority to you, you will pay for it. And if you will pay for it, a doctor will see you and treat you. It just hasn't become a priority for most people and they are spending the money elsewhere and are under the impression that they can't afford quality coverage. The reality is they don't want to pay for it so the next step is to demand the government find a solution so they don't have to pay for it. They are just going to take it out of your check each month before you get paid.

What do you all think of what this clinic is doing? They are saving money on the office staff it would required to bill insurance companies, that also have to employ people to process your claims. The providers and the insurance companies are in the business of making money so who do you think ultimately pays for these 2 sets of people to process your claims? They go into the cost of health care provided to you. You pay for it. Don't kid yourself and say your company pays for it or the government pays for it. You're salary is probably a lot less over time because your benefits fall into your compensation package, and you pay taxes to the government to pay for everyone on government insurance. Unless the government is supporting you.

How's That Stimulus Working Out For You?

2009-07-08T19:15:00.005-05:00

In case you haven't been paying attention to anything outside of Michael Jackson, USA Today reported yesterday that states aren't using funds as intended. Here's the link to the article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-07-stimulus_N.htm

"The report says that as of mid-June, states had received about $29 billion of the estimated $49 billion in stimulus funding they are scheduled to get before the federal budget year ends Sept. 30. More than 90% of the money given to the states so far is for Medicaid and a fund meant to prop up states' budgets for schools and other basic services such as public safety."

The report they are referring to is from the Government Accountability Office which has been tasked with tracking and monitoring the funds. Their report came out today according to the link I was sent. (I'm a nerd and am signed up on their e-mail list for updates). Here's the link if you're interested in the report.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09829.pdf

And for the appendices or appendixes as they put it. Any grammar experts out there? Is the dog or the government correct?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09830sp.pdf

For the purposes of this report 16 states and the District of Columbia are being required to report their spending of the stimulus money they receive. My state Texas is one of them. You can find the rest in one of those links if you care.

From the report link above page 3 of the pdf. "Overall, states reported using Recovery Act funds to stabilize state budgets and to cope with fiscal stresses. The funds helped them maintain staffing for existing programs and minimize or avoid tax increases as well as reductions in services."

p. 14 or 8 if you look on the numbering on the report;"From October 2007 to May 2009, overall Medicaid enrollment in the 16 states and the District increased by 7 percent. In addition, each of the states and the District experienced an enrollment increase during this period, with the highest number of programs experiencing an increase of 5 percent to 10 percent. However, the percentage increase in enrollment varied widely ranging from just under 3 percent in California to nearly 20 percent in Colorado." Figure 3 on the next page shows the increases state by state.

Are the increased Medicaid rolls really all that surprising with the unemployment rate rising and standing nationally at just shy of 10%?

Is it at all possible that those of us that wanted the government to do nothing and let the recession take its course were right? Doing something seems to have increased and perhaps prolonged the recession. This was a bipartisan effort to screw us all over. Do you still think it was a good idea? Do you think the government should do more?

This is not an original idea, Neal Boortz poses these questions all of the time on his radio show, but what would happen if instead of the government spending on programs and "federal aid," they declared some sort of tax holiday for the masses for several months? Meaning everyone of us would take home our full paycheck (minus our contributions to retirement and/or 401ks). That's several hundred dollars a month extra that people would take home and have to spend, pay of debt, and save. What if instead of trying to hunt and search American money in Swiss bank accounts or other foreign countries in an effort to penalize the American owners of this money, they declared amnesty for all Americans to bring their money back penalty and tax free? They could then start investing that money in their local communities in the form of new businesses, spending, donations, or sitting in American banks rather than sitting in foreign banks.

Do any of these things make any kind of sense to anyone? Or are we as a society trying to legislate "fairness" by taking from those who work hard for their money and giving to those who may not work as hard. Is that really fair? What happened to fair meaning everyone having the same opportunity to work hard and succeed in this country?

Don't Take Freedom for Granted

2009-07-03T17:11:00.004-05:00

The 4th of July is the day we supposedly celebrate our freedom in this country. But do we ever stop to really think about what that means? Year after year our state and national representatives pass laws that are continually encroaching on our freedom and independence. And how to we repay them? We re-elect them to continue passing more and more laws that take away our freedoms. Some in ways that are so minor that we don't even notice or bother to care. But one day you wake up and you find yourself taking for granted that you are relying on the government for something.

Take Social Security for example. Look how many people rely on it for their retirement. Look how many people don't want to give it up because of how much they've already paid into it or because they are a few years away from getting it. I'd give it up right now if they'd quit taking it out of my check, but they won't do that because they have to take from me to give to those that aren't working anymore. Ponzi Scheme. And as a nation we seem to be ok with the government run ponzi scheme. We depend on it. We look forward to our return, even though they keep pushing back our eligibility for it, and cutting the benefit.

When is enough going to be enough? When are we going to take back our independence from our own government?

Have a safe and happy Independence Day!

Are Politics More Polarizing Now than 20-30 Years Ago?

2009-06-28T16:24:00.003-05:00

I was watching a stand-up comedy routine from the early 80's and it was filmed in Washington D.C. So a brief comment was made about Reaganomics and the crowed booed. They didn't stay on it long but enough was said that the predominate feeling in the room was that Reaganomics was bad. Now I know Ronald Reagan wasn't a perfect president and no president is. However the conservative (not Republican) belief is that Reaganomics was really good for this country. His economic policies stimulated the economy that many say Carter and whoever sent spiraling downward.

I wasn't alive back then, so I don't know what the general political feeling was. Was it really all that different than today? Did people pick their side and no matter what the other side did, it was disastrous, or wrong, or sending the country to hell in a hand basket? All I hear from the other side, no matter who's in power, is doom and gloom. And you find yourself starting to buy into the hype of doom and gloom.

That said, there are some dangerous policies being discussed and voted on, i.e. cap and trade and government run health-care that disturb me greatly. But what disturbs me even more, is that either people are laissez-faire when it comes to voicing their opinion about politics and policies to their representatives, or that our representatives just aren't listening. I happen to think it's a combination of both. If everyone in this country took 10 minutes on each major issue to contemplate how it will affect them and their family, maybe more people would take another 10 minutes to call or email the government to let them know how they want their representative to vote on certain issues. Instead it seems like people can't be bothered with this as they are too busy enjoying their lives.

Reality Check!! The reason we have the freedom to enjoy our lives is because people stood up and voiced their opinions!! And fought for freedom. But slowly over the years, our freedoms have been encroached upon and we let it happen in the name of safety and compassion or charity (no matter how mismanaged), among other things. Before you know it the government will be telling all of you what you are allowed to buy to feed your family while taking 50-75% of your check each month. But you'll be so dependant upon their "free" health care, "free" food, and "free" housing, that you won't be able to see how much better quality lives you could have if only you could make your own decisions. They want everyone to become so dependant on them that we do their bidding. When the government is in charge, quality and efficiency are drastically reduced. But sheep don't know the difference. Sheep will be convinced it's wonderful because they have food to eat and a place to sleep.

Let's not become a mass of sheep being herded by wolves!! Fight back, get involve, voice your opinion!!! Don't become complacent. The more that happens the more powerful they get. Please care enough to not let this happen!

Cap and Trade Is Bad for You and Your Family

2009-06-25T20:04:00.005-05:00

Go read this article from the Wall Street Journal on the Cap and Trade legislation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Cap and Trade is a hidden tax that will drive up the price of energy for you, me, and every other person out there. It's all done in the name of the environment, but in all actuality it just hurts the economy. The U.S. is not polluting this world near to the extent that China and India are. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our part to keep our part of the world clean. But putting more stress on an already stressed economy does not clean up the earth. It just stresses the economy further which discourages people from updating their old junky car to something that doesn't pollute nearly as much and that's more fuel efficient as one example.

What can you do? Call and write your senators and representatives and tell then to vote against this. Let them know their job depends on it. Supposedly they may be voting on this as early as tomorrow, so don't wait. Call and write NOW!!!
http://www.senate.gov/ for your senators
http://www.house.gov/ for your representatives

Nationalized Health Care - Are You Sure That's What You Want?

2009-06-21T17:21:00.002-05:00

The hot topic the last couple of weeks, other than the election in Iran, has been the push by the White House for rapid Health care reform. Rapid Reform. Am I the only one disturbed at the speed at which the federal government wants to move to develop reform? Did they not rush into the bailouts that many of us disapprove of? Do you really want them to rush into reform that essentially adds people to the Medicare and Medicaid rolls which are actually already in trouble and not actuarially sound? They are going to be behind soon and yet the grand idea is to increase their rolls? Does this sound logical to you? Because it certainly does not sound logical to me.

Not only are we bankrupting existing generations but future generations are in trouble. You want to encourage people to NOT have kids to add to the tax base, this is one way to do it.

http://cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/health.care/index.html

Have we become such a complacent nation that we don't care whatever the government does with our money and we don't care how much of our money they take? Or are we just not paying attention and have no clue that the money is running out, and that sooner than later the only way to get it is to increase taxes on those of us who work for a living?

Write your senators and representatives. Let them know what you think!!! If they don't listen to you, vote them out of office!!! Or pretty soon we will all be working hard only to turn over most if not all of our money to the government who are about as efficient as....well government.

There are plenty of solutions to heath care that are better than essentially increasing the medicare and medicaid rolls. Tax deductibles for purchasing insurance for one. Allow for more free market purchasing for health insurance (ability to cross state lines to purchase health insurance which increases competition) for another. I'm sure many of you have other options that would be better than a government run insurance that would encourage people to switch to the government insurance. Trust me if you're paying the government insurance premium, no matter how low, you will also be paying increased taxes, waiting lines, at the expense of quality of care. Are you sure this is what you want?

Please I beg you, contact your politicians.

Time for A Second Revolution?

2009-06-17T21:29:00.003-05:00

If you haven't seen this yet, it's worth a watch. It'll fire you up if you aren't already fired up. Send it to everyone you know!

Iranian Election...Legit or Sham?

2009-06-14T13:12:00.004-05:00

The big news story as of late seems to be the Iranian election in which the incumbent, Holocaust denying, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was up for re-election. His biggest rival Mir Hossein Moussavi is considered to be a reformist in Iran, meaning they favor loosening social restrictions at home and improving Iran's ties with the West.

After the ballots were counted, Ahmadinejad received 62.63% of the votes and Moussavi 33.75%. Many believe it was fixed due to the high number of voters that turned out expressing support for Moussavi. Another factor contributing to this is that the median age in Iran is 27, meaning half of the population is 27 and older and half is 27 and younger. It is this younger population that has been so supportive of Moussavi, which makes such a blowout hard to believe.

I suppose it depends on your definition of a blow out election, but take a look at the US Presidential election results for some perspective. Not out of the realm of possibility, however if the results are true, then it suggests the county overwhelmingly supports Ahmadinejad's leadership and beliefs and only about 1/3 of the country supports reform in Iran and how it deals with the world.

CNN was reporting on Saturday that much of the communication had been shut down in Iran such as Facebook and other methods people use to express their views.

What do you think. Are the results legitimate or a complete sham? Are 1/3 of the population just out of luck? Or are they right that this has turned into a dictatorship? Do you care that he's still in power?

Corporate Greed...What's The Problem?

2009-06-04T20:30:00.010-05:00

So for the last year or so we've been hearing that the economy is in such peril that we've just got to do something about health care, and this, that, and the other to fix all of our problems. Here's the fundamental problem I have. People (not everyone) site corporate greed as huge problem and the solution is to tax them out the wazoo to "teach them" or "punish them" for being so greedy. So to these people it seems illogical to lower the corporate tax rate to "fix things" because that teach corporations to stop being so greedy. The U.S. already has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world and yet we are still in this mess. I know I've touched on this before, but I'm going to approach it from a different perspective hopefully.

Let's start with the recent news from Wal-Mart since they are one of the most popular demonized corporations outside of "big oil." Wal-mart is going to add 22,000 jobs domestically this year.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/04/news/companies/walmart_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes
Before you guys bitch and moan saying they are crappy low paying jobs, "the retailer said the new hires will fill positions across its business units, including cashiers and sales associates, as well as pharmacists, human resource managers and customer service associates."

"The discounter said benefits, including health plans that offer customized health coverage options, will be offered to its full and part-time workers."

"Wal-Mart is the largest private-sector employer in the United States with a workforce of 1.45 million. Its total worldwide workforce is more than 2 million."

Like it or not, Wal-Mart is good for everyone in an economy like this. Not only are they providing all kinds of jobs, but they drive the competitive forces in that industry which keep prices low for all of us that are pinching our pennies in said economy that "is the worst since the great depression." Perspective people, we aren't standing in soup lines as a country. None-the-less, Wal-Mart is helping us stretch our dollars, even if you don't shop there. For that I am very thankful.

Onto the next point about corporations. Everyday people like you and me own these greedy corporations in the form of retirement portfolios, personal investment portfolios, etc. We want them to find ways to make more money because that drives up the stock price, which increases the value of our 401k which drives our ability to retire when we want to, along with the amount we save.

Not only does making more money lead to increased stock price, but it comes as a result of growth. What happens when a corporation grows? They add jobs to help keep up with demand for their product or service. So what if the founding and primary stock holder and possibly the CEO, is greedy. His or her greed ultimately leads to meeting the needs and desires of others in the form of increased stock value, or jobs. Does this make them evil? Does this warrant increasing the tax rate on a corporation?

Let's take a look at what happens when you raise the taxes on a corporation. In order to do this, we must ponder who pays these taxes? It's publicly owned. Say you own shares of stock. You pay taxes on any capital gains. Don't tell me you bought that stock with the intention of losing money. You wanted to make money. By logic being discussed, doesn't that make you greedy? So you pay taxes, but you aren't the only one. There are income taxes, but you probably don't think they count since we all have to pay income taxes as a reward for working!!! So I'll move on to payroll taxes as a result of employing people to pay for such things as social security and medicare, etc. Remember all employment costs get calculated into the cost of goods sold. So employing that knowledge, (don't believe me, ask a business owner) in order to make money, (which is the ultimate goal of any business, even nonprofits) they must account for income tax in the price of their goods. Now I know that the value of a good or service is what the market is willing to pay for it, but if they aren't making money after taxes, they aren't going to stay in business long because it won't be worth their time and effort. In all actuality the corporation is collecting taxes from you the consumer to pass along to the government. So you are the one getting taxed out the wazoo not the corporation. Corporation is a word, it's not a living breathing being able to make money and pay taxes. It is a word that is made up of people that have ownership interest in a group of people doing work for another group of people who pay for that work, and all 3 groups are the ones paying the taxes. So if you raise taxes on corporations you hurt all 3 groups of people.

So am I to assume that hurting people is the solution to the problem? Cutting spending sounds more logical to me.

On a side note, I'd like to see a copy of the cleared check to the IRS that person, who voted in my poll on the left, obviously must have sent to the IRS in addition to his/her current tax bill. Odd thing is, is that someone actually made that statement to me that they were willing to pay more taxes, and so I said fine you can pay ours.

Am I greedy? If wanting to keep my hard earned money to provide a reasonable life for my family without relying on the government to take care of me is greedy, then damn right I'm greedy!!! And I make no apologies for it. But I define greedy differently. I think greed is wanting what isn't yours for nothing. For example, if I want someone else's money, without providing them something in exchange for that money, that's greedy. It's also damn lazy. Business works by an owner paying his/her employees money in exchange for work they do for them. In corporations if you think the leadership is too greedy and not worth the money they are paid, then you have the right to vote at the annual shareholders meeting. So do it.

Who do I think is greedy? The government and the politicians sick with power running it. They take money from us all the time and provide us with practically nothing in return. They use our tax dollars to buy our votes. And we continue to let them. Why is this so difficult to understand for some people? I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a certain amount of taxes collected for infrastructure and military purposes. I'm even ok with some limited temporary assistance programs. But it's a way over-bloated system. With the Fair Tax, anyone receiving assistance is still paying taxes to help pay for these programs. I'm not going to go into the fair tax but look in my previous posts and you'll find a post on it if you're interested. Or just check out the website.

That's all for this rant. What do you think? Is corporate greed a problem?

Is Teaching Your Kids to Beg A Good Thing?

2009-05-30T20:45:00.006-05:00

I live in the Austin, TX metropolitan area and it is common in the Austin city limits to see people walking along the line of traffic at stop lights asking for money. These are generally presumed to be homeless people or unemployed people. I generally have a problem with this as most of them could go to the nearest fast food restaurant and get a job. I do understand that some of these people likely have mental problems and would be best suited in a state facility. But I don't think that is the majority based on the culture of acceptance of such behavior here. If they put as much effort into finding and doing a job as they do into asking for handouts, they might be worth $10-$15 an hour. It is apparently more profitable for them to ask for money from passers by than to get a job, hence why you tend to see the same people at the same intersections day after day.

Well one thing that we've noticed on Saturday mornings is groups, such as various kids sports groups out in the medians with their parents holding signs asking for money to help them go to some tournament or some other outing with their group. I have a fundamental problem with the parents who are obviously behind this form of fundraising. Whatever happened to car washes, bake sales, and garage sales etc.? When did teaching kids that they don't really need to do anything to earn money become appropriate? I'm just as appalled at the people that give money to them for nothing. I'm more inclined to give money to a homeless person than a child growing up in a 2 income family with plenty of money to send their kid if they had to, but cheap enough to beg for it rather than pay for it themselves because they are too lazy to bake cookies for a bake sale, or wash cars in a car wash or some other activity that might require a little bit of planning and effort. Walking around with a sign is lazy and shameful. I'm willing to pay for my kid to play in this select sports group, but too cheap and/or lazy to pay or teach them to earn the money they need to go on a special trip for being on this select team. Newsflash!!! Select leagues are a way of getting more money from you and you put them in it for bragging rights. EVERYONE'S kid is in select league and there are plenty of kids not on a select team that are better than your kid. Just so you know.

Quit teaching your spoiled kids to also be lazy. Teach them the value of a dollar by making them work for it. And people wonder what's going wrong in this world. People are learning they don't need to work for anything because the government will take money from the rich and give it to them. That's what's wrong. Quit looking to the government or anyone else for a handout. It's lame and screwing up our world!!! Get off your lazy butt and do something useful!!!By doing so, you'll teach your kids about personal responsibility as opposed to depending on handouts.

Happy Memorial Day!!!

2009-05-24T19:38:00.003-05:00

I'd like to say a big Thank You to the families of the many soldiers who have given their lives in service to this country defending the very freedom that we have and continue to fight for. Your sacrifice does not go unnoticed or unappreciated here. And thank you to all the soldiers who continue to fight.

Have a save and happy holiday weekend!

Is a Commencement Speech the Appropriate Time to Get Political?

2009-05-17T16:51:00.004-05:00

The President gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame this weekend, and it's apparently very controversial because he chose this time to give a speech about abortion. When I was trying to figure out what to write about, (Pelosi's fiasco...everyone knows she's a nut-job liar, budget cuts...can you really brag about your cuts if the overall budget increases?) I was very hesitant to even discuss this as one of the two discussions to have about this story involves abortion, which I generally planned to stay away from. However, I decided to buck it up and have the two discussions. The first will be about the topic of abortion and what he said, and the second will be about the title of this post as that's what really drove me to discuss this, even though it's the shorter of the two discussions.

So the title of the referenced CNN article is "Obama calls for common ground on abortion at Notre Dame," and while I may agree with the sentiment, it's as idealistic as banning or outlawing abortion. This is because I think people are very passionate about this issue,which it's very black and white to most people; right or wrong. I am of the opinion that there are people that are so passionately for abortion rights that they get come across pro eugenics more than pro-choice. If you don't know what eugenics is, click on the link I've provided for a more in depth discussion on it. Basically it's the belief that the human species can or should be improved though the elimination of inferior members. I take great offense to this. I don't believe that all pro-choice people hold this belief, but I think it's a fine line some walk when they discuss reasons to have an abortion with someone who has simply proclaimed she wouldn't choose it for herself. Pro-choice should be as much about choosing not to have one as it is about choosing to have one.

Here are the comments Obama made in the speech that I agree with taken from the CNN article:

"He urged supporters and opponents of abortion rights to 'work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.'"

"He also endorsed the drafting of a 'sensible conscience clause' to 'honor the conscience' of doctors and other medical workers opposed to abortion."

I think we need to focus on working to reduce the number of people that make the choice by encouraging, perhaps even incentivizing adoptions. I'm sure private citizens that are looking to adopt would be willing take part in some incentive program for girls trying to make up their mind. And while I believe that health care workers shouldn't be forced to participate in abortions if they don't agree with it, they also shouldn't got seeking employment in abortion clinics and then refuse to do the job based on their beliefs. They should be made aware of the situation surrounding the impending abortion, whether it is essentially "elective" or "medically necessary" for the life of the mother and make their decision from there, and appropriate staff should be available.

I also believe there should be intensive counseling for elective abortions that lasts longer than 20 minutes where alternative options are discussed as well as the reasons for the decision. There should be at the very least a 48 hr waiting period that involve 2 8 hour days of counseling. I abhor abortion as a form a birth control and eugenics, but people will use it for these two purposes and the decision shouldn't be made lightly. They need to understand in both cases, there are people that want to adopt. There are people that will adopt special needs kids and these parents need to be made aware of this. I think the ultimate decision is between them and God. Our job is to encourage the right decision, not demonize the wrong one. (this does not include abortions that happen to save the life of the mother, there is no right decision there as a baby will either die or grow up without a mother. Anyone self-righteous enough to condemn either decision made in a case like this will also have to answer to God...We all have to answer to God in the end for our actions and words)

Now onto the point that really riled me up to write about this story, which is discussing a political agenda during a graduation ceremony. Isn't that a downer? Isn't the commencement speech supposed to be about the graduates' futures as they are about to step into the "real world?" How is bringing politics into the day accomplishing this? Not to mention it's offensive to some people whether they agree with his views or not. I would feel robbed of what should be a perfectly joyous moment in my life.

What do you think? Should politics be a "hands off" topic for giving a commencement speech?

NASA - Should We Be Investing in Space Exploration?

2009-05-10T20:19:00.003-05:00

In these economic stressful times, many of us want the President and congress to cut the budget. Obviously I can think of many places to make cuts that I've discussed before. The reality is that there are additions being made that I don't agree with related to welfare, health care, and hostile take overs infringing on capitalism.

One thing we haven't discussed is NASA. On this weekend of the release of Star Trek, a movie that epitomizes space exploration beyond our wildest imaginations. I have heard discussions on NASA and arguments for or against spending on it. Some people think we are wasting money exploring space, while others want the U.S. to remain the leaders in the world in space exploration.

Let me giving you some spending history budgeted for NASA going back to 1996.

2010 Proposed $18.7 Billion
2009 Estimate: $17.8 Billion
2008 Estimate: $17.2 Billion
2007 Actual: $15.8 Billion
2006 Actual: $15.1 Billion
2005 Actual: $15.6 Billion
2004 Actual: $15.1 Billion
2003 Actual: $14.5 Billion
2002 Actual: $14.9 Billion
2001 Actual: $14.2 Billion
2000 Actual: $6.8 Billion
1999 Actual: $9.4 Billion
1998 Actual: $9.8 Billion
1997 Actual: $9.3 Billion
1996 Actual: $8.0 Billion

The funds proposed for 2010 you can see is not a huge increase relatively speaking. If you break it down per family of 4, it comes to 1.2 cents more. However the total $18.7 billion comes to $62.33 per person or $250 per family of 4. Obviously it's redistributed based on the amount of taxes each person or family pays. The more money you make the more you pay towards this amount. And the converse is true as well.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration.pdf

Funding Highlights:
• Provides $18.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Combined with
the $1 billion provided to the agency in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
this represents a total increase of more than $2.4 billion over the 2008 level.
• Funds a program of space-based research that supports the Administration’s commitment to
deploy a global climate change research and monitoring system.
• Funds a robust program of space exploration involving humans and robots. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration will return humans to the Moon while also supporting a
vigorous program of robotic exploration of the solar system and universe.
• Funds the safe flight of the Space Shuttle through the vehicle’s retirement at the end of 2010.
An additional flight will be conducted if it can be completed safely before the end of 2010.
• Funds the development of new space flight systems for carrying American crews and supplies
to space.
• Funds continued use of the International Space Station to support the agency and other Federal,
commercial, and academic research and technology testing needs.
• Funds aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and emissions
reduction, and fuel efficiency.

So what do you think about spending on NASA? Is it something worthwhile or is it a waste of taxpayer dollars? I'd like to know what you think.

From my perspective, there are other places in the budget I would cut that would dwarf the spending in NASA. But I would also be hesitant to double or triple their budget anytime soon. I think the research they do feeds the imagination inside all of us. I would love the opportunity to travel to space in my lifetime. But perhaps that is a pipe dream we need to let go of.

More Evidence People NEED the Government to Step In

2009-05-03T16:38:00.005-05:00

That title is meant sarcastically. Read on.

Take a look at this story from across the ocean in Wales.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Tanning-Burns-Girl-10-Suffers-70-Burns-At-An-Unmanned-Tanning-Studio-In-Port-Talbot-S-Wales/Article/200905115273238

This story caught my attention because the Texas legislature, currently in session, is considering a bill that will make it illegal for anyone under 16 1/2 to tan in a tanning salon. Apparently currently if they are under 18, they have to have a permission slip. As if they can keep them from frying themselves outside in the sun. Before you know some genius will propose legislation making it illegal for anyone under the age of 14 to be out in the sun during the day.

My point of bringing up this discussion is to bring up the point of passing laws to make other people responsible where parents should be. Do we really need a law to prevent anyone under the age of 16 1/2 from tanning? Can't parents make those decisions for their kids? Should parents be responsible for teaching their kids and instilling common sense in them? I'm not saying tanning is bad, but I don't know a teenage girl that didn't learn the "don't get burned" lesson either from a tanning bed or from the sun several times while growing up.

You might be asking why 16 1/2 as opposed to 18. The cynical opinion here in my neck of the woods has to do with moms of cheerleaders not only supporting this bill, but wanting their cheerleader daughters to be able to tan in their last couple of years on the varsity squad. Also, they need to be able to tan before prom. Because these moms are living vicariously through their daughters. So they came up with the magical age of 16 1/2. I guess at 16, some other girls might become competition for their daughters???

In the above story the mom doesn't want to use this as a lesson teaching opportunity for her 10 year old daughter. She just wants someone to sue if it happens again. Just as something happened here in Texas I'm sure to prompt this legislation. Someone wants to be able to sue a tanning salon if they're daughter gets burned. You know what's funny is that on the fiscal note that I could find for HB 1310 they are claiming no fiscal impact to the state. I'm not sure this is the final version of the bill, nor could I find the associated senate version. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?K2DocKey=odbc%3a%2f%2fTLO%2fTLO.dbo.vwCurrBillDocs%2f81%2fR%2fH%2fB%2f01310%2f1%2fF%40TloCurrBillDocs&QueryText=hb1310&HighlightType=1
They say it can be absorbed into the existing budget. BS!!! If they are given an excuse to increase the budget, add an employee or two, they will use it. It may take some time, but they'll find a way to "justify" it. That's just the way government works. They will have to have someone take the phone calls, and investigate complaints. Gradually it will grow over time to start inspecting tanning salons and writing citations. That's just the way government works. So

I oppose laws like this. We have to take personal responsibility for the choices we make. What's your take?

What Is The Purpose of Fear Tactics?

2009-04-29T19:14:00.006-05:00

Are you scared yet? Has the media got you all worked up and terrified? Are you running out buying up hand sanitizer and face masks yet? Are you calling in sick to work because you "think you might have swine flu?" Are you just afraid that you will catch it?

Ron Paul, Texas congressman and physician, put up a video providing some insight and perspective as a physician. Take a few minutes to watch it because he makes some very relevant points.

Many of you may have heard about the fly over New York City of Air Force One and a couple of F-16s for a photo op. It apparently scared the you know what out of some people causing them to evacuate buildings in a post 9/11 New York City. Check out the below link to a CBS affiliate story.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.force.one.2.996457.html

It indicates that the police, secret service, FBI, and mayor's office (though not the mayor himself) knew of the flight and were threatened with federal sanctions if word of the fly over got out.

Why would the federal government threaten sanctions on a state over word about a flight? Is that even constitutional? Are you ok with this kind of a threat? Are you ok with the impromptu and unknown "fire drill" so to speak? Are you ok with the resulting fear it caused people in New York?

Do you find it interesting that the government is allowing a message of fear to be spread twice in the same week over two different issues? Ok that's a bit far fetched but mass fear leads to chaos which leads to martial law. "The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory."

"Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state. The power to do so usually is granted in the state constitution." (Click for source)

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, however I do believe that 99% of politicians thrive on power. And I believe the longer they are in power the more power they will seek and the more ways they will explore to achieve that power. Something to think of when you're voting to re-elect your representatives or not.

Pimps and Unions; Aren’t They Really the Same?

2009-04-26T12:20:00.003-05:00

This is actually a reprint of a post I made on another blog, but I believe it was before it was getting any regular traffic. I also thought it was appropriate in light of the continuous government decision (they don't ask us) to give GM billions of dollars just to make it a few more months. Whether you agree with trying to save the American car companies or not, I think we all have to agree that there's got to be a limit. And what point do we cut off the addict and say enough is enough?

The reason I'm reprinting this article is because from my perspective you can't place expectations on the car companies to succeed with the billions of dollars we are giving them, without giving them the freedom to restructure the way they do business. Being forced to deal with the union is what's hurting them and the employees that are getting let go. So here goes, I hope you like it...

So before I get to what I feel are the obvious similarities between Pimps and Labor Unions, I have a very important question that I know many of you have discussed or thought about and one time or another. How is it that Pimps talk themselves into a job in the first place? Do they go up to prostitutes on the street and say “I got a proposition for you. You go find work and give me 70% of your money, and I’ll beat the crap out of you when I feel like it.” Is that how the negotiation works? Because let me tell you, agents only get 10% if I’m correct, and they actually find you work. If I were that prostitute I’d slap that pimp upside the head and tell him “hell no. Why would I give you 70%, 50%, or even 10% when I can keep 100%?” That seems like the obvious response from all prostitutes to wanna-be pimps. But somehow, there’s still a profession of pimps out there. Makes no sense to me.

Now that we’ve established that Pimps will take your money and beat you senseless, let’s look at just exactly what labor unions do for people. So they tell you they that they will negotiate your salary and benefits on your behalf. But this is obviously not a free service. Rather than charging you a one-time finders fee, they charge you in the form of union dues. And this comes directly out of your pay check either every time you get paid or once a month. And correct me if I’m wrong, in most union run companies, you don’t get the opportunity to opt out of the union to handle your own negotiations. You’re either in or you’re unemployed. Correct?

Next comes the negotiations, so after they’ve been taking everyone’s money for so long they have to make it look like they are doing more than just collecting dues every month. They need to justify their existence. So they rile up the payers of the dues and convince them that they need more of this, that, or the other and if they don’t get it, it’s worth striking over. So the union leaders go to management and make generally unreasonable demands and insist on their way or the highway. This is all in spite of the fact that management is telling them they just can’t afford all of that. But the union leaders refuse to budge because they want to look like heroes in an effort to justify their existence. So they force a strike and all the dues paying workers are forced to walk the picket line, which means they are no longer earning a paycheck. Well most of these people can’t afford to go without a paycheck, but nonetheless, this is expected so strike they must.

What happens if you try to cross the picket line? Haven’t you all seen Hoffa? And isn’t that when they were actually doing the workers some good? They beat them senseless. But since they probably have media outlets and the cops on the payroll, it’s not a big story. The only story is that they are on strike and management is being unreasonable and the union won’t budge because it is only “fair.” I tell you this, is it fair for them to take your money and then force you to not take a paycheck for a while? Is it fair for them to bitch-slap you if you disagree with them?

So then they go back to the negotiating table after a few days, weeks, or months and concede some of their demands but miraculously strike a deal with management and they are heroes, who by the way weren’t technically on strike since they were working for the strikers. So their incomes didn’t take a hit. Had you not paid them one bit of dues and not gone without a check while on strike, you’d probably be better off financially than you are with their “help.”So let’s sum up the comparison between the two:

Pimps
-Take money from the hard working Prostitutes
-Force Prostitutes to do as they say
-Beat them if they try to run away
-Provide nothing of value for Prostitutes

Unions
-Take money from the workers actually doing the work for the company
-Force union workers to follow union rules
-Beat workers who dare cross the picket line
-Provide nothing of value for workers

I think I’ve made my point.

Keith Olberman and Janeane Garofalo...Really??

2009-04-20T16:41:00.003-05:00

I really don't want to give these two the time of day, but I feel I must since they felt it was important enough to discuss in spite of declaring that only 10s of people showed up to the tea parties across the country. If you haven't seen it, feel free to watch otherwise I will address some of their quotes below.

JANEANE GAROFALO: "Thank you. You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile...."

I for one would like to know what her version of what the Boston Tea Party was about. But I find it interesting how she couldn't even address that and went straight to name calling and making up a ridiculous preposterous point that everyone there was ignorant, hateful, and mindless. They couldn't possibly be furious about the taxation without representation that has been going on in Washington prior to this administration as well as during this administration, on both sides of the aisle. If we don't agree with them and we assemble we are misinformed, hateful, morons. Never mind that beauty that we live in a country where we have a right to free speech even if we don't always agree with each other. Wait I suppose my disagreeing now is disrespecting their right to free speech huh???

GAROFALO: "I don't think you do, for most of them. This is a -- it's almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or lifestyle. And again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. But they immigrant bash, they pretend taxes and tea bags, and like I said, most of them probably couldn't tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston tea party, the British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be. But these people, all white for the most part, unless there's some people with Stockholm syndrome there."

So now if you showed up and you were anything but white you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Which means you feel sympathy and empathy and an emotional attachment for your captors. Look up Stockholm syndrome if you're not familiar with it. But she's saying you're too stupid to have a mind of your own. I'm just a dog and I love everyone so I'm not an expert on racism, but is her comment racist? Is anyone offended yet? Well I'd like to emphasize that it is a beautiful thing to live in a country where we have the right to free speech. We don't want to loose this liberty so I will defend her right to say whatever she wants and I will defend your right to rebut with anything you want to.

GAROFALO: "Here's what the right-wing has in, there's no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear. As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes. Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn't do that, who is going to watch -- you know what I mean? They have tackled that elusive clam -- you know, the clam, the 18 to 35 clam -- klan. Klan. With a k demo. But, you know, who else is Fox talking to? I mean, what is it urban older white guys? And the girlfriend, and, you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm syndrome gain. There's a lot of Stockholm syndrome, is what I'm saying ultimately. What else do you want to know?"

More with the Stockholm Syndrome and now it's women. Where is the feminist outrage??? Wait feminism is about how evil men are and the women that love them, depend on them, care for them, etc. are weak and mindless. So that explains why feminist groups aren't outraged. And women that don't identify with feminists are too busy having lives to care that Janeane Garofalo reverts to Stockholm syndrome to insult them and every other group that doesn't fit into the "white male" category. Come on...New material...

This isn't about hating Obama. This dates back to the original bill that was passed before the election that both of my senators voted for (my representative voted against it in the House) when me and my fellow Americans called and wrote their representatives and senators begging them NOT to bail out the banks. But they passed it anyways with the patronizing excuse that they had to do what was good for America. One of my senators was the face for Republicans that were going to vote for it. The only part Obama had to do with it was his vote for it. Bush is the one that was pushing it and our congressmen passed it. This is about a collective government spiting in the face of Americans and saying we don't care what you think, we are going to do what we want in the name of power. And now the government is in the banking business with your tax dollars and mine. And they will never get out of that business.

With all due respect Ms. Garofolo and Mr. Olberman, I'll keep my Stockholm syndrome and you can keep your wretchedly unhappy lives.

Happy Tax Day!!!

2009-04-15T18:17:00.003-05:00

Are you excited to have a national due date to pay your taxes??? How do you plan to celebrate tax day this year? Still love our tax policy? Have any ideas to change it? Until I hear a better idea, I support the fair tax. It eliminates income tax and institutes a national sales tax from a basic standpoint. Anyone who consumes in this country, legal or illegal, citizen or visiting, pays taxes. It eliminates all the loopholes that only the rich people seem to have access to and taxes those who have historically been tax evaders.

The only thing I don't like about it so far, is that it doesn't address the spending problem. But we the people have to take care of that by getting involved and voting out the good ol' boys and getting fresh blood in there. If they won't impose term limits on themselves, we'll do it for them!!! Let your congressmen know that you intend to impose a term limit on them.

The Effects of the Economy in my Neighborhood

2009-04-12T06:57:00.003-05:00

Since tax day is rapidly approaching and how much you paid affects your own personal economy, I thought I'd discuss my observations of the effects of the economy in my own neighborhood. What does this have to do with tax day you ask? Well because the more taxes you paid last year, the less disposable income you had to save, pay off debt, or spend, which affects your own personal economy. And if you didn't pay any taxes, perhaps your family didn't earn enough to pay which may be abnormal for your family, which may have made your own personal economy very very tight.

So every holiday around my neighborhood you can walk through or drive through the various streets and see all kinds of decorations out in the yard. Easter is no exception. The one that floored me was the year I saw Valentines decorations out at one or two houses. Not everyone decorates their yard, but a few handfuls do including some of our neighbors surrounding us. Yesterday in really hit me that no one has decorated for Easter. Usually a few people have some kind of blow up monstrous easter bunny out in their yard with who knows what else.

You may be thinking what I was thinking at first, they just didn't put out their decorations from last year. Maybe they got lazy. My father was quick to point out that most of these people don't store their decorations, they have garage sales all spring and summer to get rid of all their crap so they can buy new crap for the next holiday. You might be able to conclude from that statement that our household doesn't waste money to put crap outside in the yard for every holiday. But those that do are more than welcome to. I just hope they aren't going into debt for it or already drowning in debt.

That may not seem like much, and to be honest Texas is one of the better places to be during this economic slowdown. But there are random foreclosures around here and there are people getting layed off. But Dell is always laying people off so you know you will get it if you don't leave first. There are jobs to be had here and it's not nearly the painful blow that some states are experiencing. Nonetheless, you do see people pinching their pennies and restraining their spending. Which most probably should have been doing all along.

So how do you see the economy affecting your neighborhood, office, or city? Do you think tax policies increasing taxes on income or goods and services that you consume will help your personal economic situation? Will that help you and your neighbors pay their mortgage, pay off their credit cards, or perhaps buy their next meal? Will it help employers add a job that perhaps you or your neighbor would love to have? Remember tax day isn't about refunds, it's about all the hard earned money that the government takes from hard working people to spend as they see fit. I'm not saying all functions of the government are bad. But how much is too much? What percentage did you end up paying? Are you ok with it? Are you ok with your employer's taxes going up? What if that means he has to let one person go as a result? Are you ok if that person is you?

There are alternatives to current tax policy, but that includes taking power away from the government and putting it back in the hands of the people. How do you feel about that? Would you just prefer the government take care of all your wants and the loss of your power and money? or would you prefer they not have as much power and you have more money?

Of course I support the Fair Tax at this point. But their are other solutions out there that I would be ok with. You can't just whine and complain about tax policy. You have to have a plan you can support. Then you have to nag your representatives and let them know what you support and what you want them to support. Let them know current policies are unacceptable to you and commit to voting them out of office if they support them.

Pet Tax Return

2009-04-05T15:34:00.005-05:00

I thought I'd share this with you all for fun...My 1st or 2nd cousin once removed or however that works out...(my mom's 1st cousin)....She sent this to me. I think many of you all would love to fill one of these out. If you click on the image it should open it up into another page making it bigger and much easier to read.

Anyways I'd really like to call your attention to check box after the label at the top. "Pet Election Campaign" It doesn't say a designation of a particular candidate but I'll go ahead and say feel free to write in my name should you feel compelled to mark that box and make a donation to my campaign.

Hope you enjoy

Back to the 2010 Budget - Department of Health and Human Services

2009-03-31T21:05:00.005-05:00

Here's the link to the part of the budget specific to Health and Human Services. It's only 4 pages so I think it's worth a read.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services1.pdf

But if you can't bring yourself to read 4 pages, here are the highlights provided on page 1.
Funding Highlights:
• Accelerates the adoption of health information technology and utilization of electronic health
records.
• Expands research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments to give patients and
physicians better information on what works best.
• Invests over $6 billion for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health as part of the
Administration’s multi-year commitment to double cancer research funding.
• Strengthens the Indian health system with sustained investments in health care services for
American Indians and Alaska Natives to address persistent health disparities and foster healthy
Indian communities.
• Invests $330 million to increase the number of doctors, nurses, and dentists practicing in areas
of the country experiencing shortages of health professionals.
• Supports families by providing additional funding for affordable, high-quality child care,
expanding Early Head Start and Head Start, and creating the Nurse Home Visitation program
to support first-time mothers.
• Strengthens the Medicare program by encouraging high quality and efficient care, and improving
program integrity.
• Invests over $1 billion for Food and Drug Administration food safety efforts to increase and
improve inspections, domestic surveillance, laboratory capacity and domestic response to
prevent and control food borne illness.

First of all, I don't support government funded research of diseases. People don't need to be compelled to give to research, they will do it as they see a need. I highly encourage private efforts to raise funds for research. Look at how successful St. Jude's is at raising money for research and treatment of kids with cancer. But I shouldn't jump on this one since it's unpopular to oppose government funding of diseases.

Here's what the highlights don't tell you but the website does. The budget establishes a reserve fund of $630 Billion over the next 10 years to "finance fundamental reform of our health care system that will bring down costs and expand coverage." If you think $630 Billion over 10 years is enough to provide universal health care, you're crazy. It will cost more than that a year most likely. And that creates health care rationing. Ask Canada or England or any other country with it. It might not be too bad for routine care, but what are you going to do if you get a life threatening disease or a pain causing condition or need a knee or hip replacement. Do you want the government telling you when you can get it taken care of? How would you like to have to live with pain unnecessarily for years before it gets treated? The older you are the further down on the list you go because you're expendable. How's that for a violation of your civil rights?

Pharmacy's have already started a solution to the problem with their generic drug programs thanks to the leading of the oh so evil Walmart. And I thought Walmart only hurt people. Now for doctors and hospitals to follow suit. Actually in essence they do. If you go to a hospital most if not all of them will offer you a self pay discount to pay up front if you don't have insurance, which is equal to or greater than the discount provided by membership to an insurance network. (The discounts very by negotiated rates with various insurance providers). If you don't choose this option and you go through the emergency room, they will set up a payment plan. Many doctors will also negotiate with you if you ask them.

Do you want to know what's driving up the cost of health care other than uncompensated care? I'm going to tell you whether you want to or not. Insurance companies have become the middle man between patients and providers. They are not non profit companies. They are for profit. So now two entities are trying to make a profit from providing you a service. Since you are the only one paying money, who do you think is paying for the profit to the insurance company and the doctor? You are, or your company is. The insurance company has to pay people to process and pay your claims and the doctors and facilities have to pay people to file claims to insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid offered by the supposed cost saving government. What if patients and providers got together to eliminate the middle man for routine care? You wouldn't have to pay insurance premiums which you could now save to pay cash for your health care. Providers would now be competing for your business on price and quality of care. Perhaps they could create their own premium based care where you pay them $X/month and they agree to see you and treat you as needed. They could tailor levels of care/cost to your age, family history, or desires.

Step two is encourage health savings though health savings accounts like are available now. I hate to use the term "mandate," but this would be an acceptable alternative in my mind. Only rather than losing any unspent money, it should be able to roll over to the next year in an effort to save for additional unexpected medical emergencies that can arise in our lifetime that may fall outside of routine care. If a balance gets to a point where it exceeds a certain cushion amount, a person can take that money out tax free for educational use, or be rolled over to a 401k or traditional IRA. (This is working under the assumption that the Fair Tax isn't implemented)

This may not be a perfect plan but it's a start and it's a better and more cost effective alternative to government run health care.

Here's a reminder/plea for you to write your congressmen and let them know what you think about the budget. I believe they are supposed to vote on it later this week. Email them, Call them!!! Do it now!!!

So You Think England is What America Should Be...

2009-03-26T21:19:00.005-05:00

Have you heard or seen the speech given by Daniel Hannan to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown? Check it out. He was on Sean Hannity tonight and had a discussion about their oh so wonderful health care system that so many Americans seem to think is the ideal. Basically he said with their health care system the patients lose, the doctors lose, and the taxpayers lose. He experiences it first hand. By the way, he apparently supported President Obama's candidacy. Check out his speech.

The House Passes a 90% Tax Rate...Are You Concerned Yet?

2009-03-22T17:48:00.007-05:00

Check out the following Time article.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1886748,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

Thursday after little debate the House passed a bill which would impose a 90% tax rate not only on the AIG bonuses that everyone is furious about, but on the majority of bonuses paid from the beginning of the year on bonuses to all employees making more than $250,000 a year working for companies that received more than $5 billion in TAR money.

Do any of you have a problem with this? What's to stop them from just imposing the same rate on every other company that didn't receive TARP money? What do you think would happen? Are you thinking that since you don't make $250,000 you don't care?

The article goes on to say that it will likely be modified in the senate to 70% on bonuses of $50,000 or more to companies that received $100 million. So this potentially broadens the number of people they will get but lowers the tax rate. I don't really know which is worse.

Here's my first problem. Everyone is so focused on these bonuses and how outrageous they are. Where is the outrage at congress for passing these bailouts to begin with that didn't exclude the bonuses. Where is the outrage that they didn't bother to read the whole bill before voting on it? Now that the country is on the hook for this money against the will of at least half of the people, maybe more, don't we need AIG and all these other companies that got TARP money to make money so they can "pay us back?" Or do we expect them to turn things around with executives and people that are worthless? What's to keep the people with the ability and know how to turn things around from going to another company that will pay them for their talent? You can't expect them to work for free. You wouldn't.

Of course the people that are part of the problem in these companies should be let go, but do you know which ones they are? I surely don't.

Are you concerned at all that congress would pass a 90% or 70% tax rate? Both sides of the aisle are on board with this. Are you? Are you aware that people that make over $250,000 a year generally employ other people through purchasing more services that they don't want to do themselves. They help keep those of us making anywhere from $15,000-$100,000 or more employed. Do you care? What happens to our salaries if theirs suddenly get sucked up in taxes? Do you think they'll stop paying for those services that they used to pay for? I do. But what do I know? I'm just a dog.

Are you upset? Do you care? And if you don't care, my question is Why Not? Do you think we should keep throwing good money after bad?

The New Budget!!! - EPA

2009-03-10T21:22:00.005-05:00

Ok so I had to make a correction because while the budget passed for the rest of 2009 with a load of earmarks, all of my links and my comments relate to the 2010 budget being proposed. So there's still time for all of you to get pissed off and write your Representatives and Senators. In case you're curious though, here's how your Senators voted. You can also find the language of the bill. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00096
And here's how your Representatives voted. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll086.xml
Now you know who to hassle.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

I find the words "A New Era of Responsibility" to be sad because it doesn't mean personal responsibility as was touted in the campaign.

For the purposes of this post I will focus on the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Check it out here.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Environmental_Protection_Agency1.pdf

In short a 34% increase in the budget over the 2009 enacted level. REALLY 34% INCREASE!!! How is that responsible? I'd like you to pay special attention to the 2nd page of that section that discusses the enactment of cap and trade in an effort to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Before you jump on how terrible our air is how polluted this country is, I want you to get on a plane and go to Brazil. I say Brazil because I have been there. I'm guessing China and India will work too and just about anywhere in South America. Then tell me just how terribly dirty and disgusting our country is.

Cap and trade is the sneaky way of raising your taxes by increasing the costs to companies. But we learned in economics 101 that corporations don't pay taxes, people do. The ultimate end customer pays taxes. So your electric bill goes up because the cost of electricity goes up. You have 2 choices pay more or turn off the heat or air conditioner. I'm sure they'll love just how much money they get from us in the south. Don't worry the oil companies are evil too so they can't leave them out of the equation so those of you that don't ride your bicycle everywhere will get hit too.

Don't worry those are just 2 ways your monthly expenses will go up. I'm sure there are more. After all they have to pay for that 34% budget increase somehow, along with the deficit.

I'm tempted to start a petition for Texas to secede from the union. We've got plenty of land so anyone holding US citizenship will be welcome to relocate here if they wish.

The EPA part of the budget is just scratching the surface. Check it out. Get informed. I'll take a look at other parts to come. Write and call your Senators and Representatives to keep this from going though. This is bad for all of us regardless of what party you support if there's even one in Washington that you support anymore.

Political Parties - Constitution

2009-03-08T17:22:00.005-05:00

Ok I'm going to break from my lecturing on contacting your representatives and caring about the economy and national debt and get back to reviewing the various political parties. Today I'm going to discuss the Constitution Party. Here's why this party is interesting to me. Politicians have to swear to uphold the constitution, so it seems to me that all politicians should be constitutionalists, but as we all know, that is not the case. What we do know, is that all parties have a few issues that they perceive are the most important and the Constitution party is no exception.

On the home page they list their 7 principles.
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

What I will say about the list is that I think that focusing on a couple of them (Ok I'll say it, 1 & 3) distract from the common good of people in our nation. It really doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, fighting over these issues distract from the importance of the other 5. Many people will say that 2 contradicts what they say about 1 & 3 and so they may want to rethink their approach or their focus on 1 & 3, unless they want to give up the importance of liberty, which is what this nation was founded on.

The full platform can be found here and I will discuss some of them in more detail. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
As always feel free to ask me my opinion on any that I don't call out here.

Bring Government Back Home
"Over time, the limitations of federal government power imposed by the Constitution have been substantially eroded. Preservation of constitutional government requires a restoration of the balance of authority between the federal government and the States as provided in the Constitution, itself, and as intended and construed by those who framed and ratified that document"

"We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not Constitutionally delegated to the federal government.We stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people or those directly elected by the people."

I Lola for president, do completely agree with this. The representatives in the federal government have gotten so power hungry, on every side of the aisle, that average people feel powerless to do anything about it. Yeah you can go vote and you can contact your representatives, but the reality is they can ignore you if they feel like it. That said get out and vote and write your representatives and encourage your family and friends to do the same. If you elect me, I will work to fight this nonsensical abuse of power.

Cost of Big Government
"A legitimate and primary purpose of civil government is to safeguard the God-given rights of its citizens; namely, life, liberty, and property. Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped."
.....
"We call for the systematic reduction of the federal debt through, but not limited to, the elimination of further borrowing and the elimination of unconstitutional programs and agencies.
We call upon the President to use his Constitutional veto power to stop irresponsible and unconstitutional appropriations, and use his Constitutional authority to refuse to spend any money appropriated by Congress for unconstitutional programs or in excess of Constitutionally imposed tax revenue."

"The debt could be more rapidly eliminated if certain lands and other assets currently held by the federal government were sold, and the proceeds applied to the debt. This policy should be employed, and funds from the sale of all such assets should be specifically applied to debt reduction."

I don't really have anything to add to this other than the sale of certain federal assets being applied to the debt is a fabulous idea. Too bad that takes away power/control in their minds, so the likelihood of that happening....pretty slim in this puppy's opinion. But I support it completely.

Health Care and Government
"The Constitution Party opposes the governmentalization and bureaucratization of American medicine. Government regulation and subsidy constitutes a threat to both the quality and availability of patient-oriented health care and treatment."

"Hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers should be accountable to patients - not to politicians, insurance bureaucrats, or HMO Administrators."

"If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results - and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers."

Don't kid yourselves, this is a fact. If you're deemed too old or you're not considered a "national hero," you'll be bumped down on the list for something you need that is in demand. You want to be able to make your own health care choices not depend on the government to make them for you. They can't do it as well as you can.

This is where I'm going to stop as these get long, but I encourage you to take a closer look at their platform. But these 3 are a start that would get this country on the right track. My theory is some of the issues will be a little hard for some of you to take since we have been brainwashed to drift further and further from the constitution. I even stated my concerns with the focus. So even people that consider themselves conservative might find themselves disagreeing with some of the stated positions. Whether you agree completely or not, it is a fact that elected officials are supposed to swear to uphold the Constitution and the fact is they haven't been for years and years and years. Long before many of you were born.

Does Anyone Care About Fiscal Responsibility?

2009-03-02T17:40:00.003-06:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/01/budget-chief-obama-sign-spending/

"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.

Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.
Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."

The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 specially sponsored projects totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion...."

Go to the link for the full article.

Go here for published details on the budget. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

Here's what I'm noticing. Obama is blaming Bush for the economy and the inherited deficit etc. etc. etc. because so many of you are eating that up with your hatred for Bush. I don't care what your feelings are about Bush, but are you all really buying the mantra that spending even more money than Bush is a good solution to cut the deficit? Do you really think that increasing the taxes of only the rich is really going to pay for the deficit and cover the increased spending?

These "evil rich people" provide jobs for you and me. And if they don't provide jobs they are probably rich enough to figure out how ride out the administration and not pay taxes for the next 4 years by not selling their investments to realize capital gains. Let's not forget the stock market keeps dropping on a daily basis, that they will probably realize capital losses and if they do pay income taxes, their losses might counter act any income taxes they would have paid.

If you care one iota about fiscal responsibility and the government not going haywire with your tax dollars, tell your representatives and senators. They need to know where you stand. Regardless of what side of the aisle they are on. They have all been guilty of porky spending and they ALL need to know you care. Write them!!! Call them!!! NOW!!!

http://www.senate.gov/

http://www.house.gov/

A word to those of you that said Clinton did it so I trust Obama. Clinton cut the military to virtually nothing and the world trade center was first bombed during his administration and then crashed into right after he left office. Obama may be talking about reducing troops in Iraq but he's talking about increasing the presence in Afghanistan. So that's not going to realize a lot of savings. Plus with all he's proposing to do, he'll replace spending in Iraq and Afghanistan with spending here. But you seem to be OK with that.

Update On Last Post

2009-02-25T17:59:00.003-06:00

Here's a link to the travel alert to Mexico by the State Department
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_3028.html

Here are a few excerpts from the article supporting the reasoning I feel border security is an issue that can't be ignored.

"The greatest increase in violence has occurred near the U.S. border. However, U.S. citizens traveling throughout Mexico should exercise caution in unfamiliar areas and be aware of their surroundings at all times. Mexican and foreign bystanders have been injured or killed in violent attacks in cities across the country, demonstrating the heightened risk of violence in public places. In recent years, dozens of U.S. citizens have been kidnapped across Mexico. Many of these cases remain unresolved. U.S. citizens who believe they are being targeted for kidnapping or other crimes should notify Mexican officials and the nearest American consulate or the Embassy as soon as possible, and should consider returning to the United States. "
....
"Mexican drug cartels are engaged in an increasingly violent conflict - both among themselves and with Mexican security services - for control of narcotics trafficking routes along the U.S.-Mexico border. In order to combat violence, the government of Mexico has deployed troops in various parts of the country. U.S. citizens should cooperate fully with official checkpoints when traveling on Mexican highways."

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades. Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez. During some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area. The U.S. Mission in Mexico currently restricts non-essential travel to the state of Durango and all parts of the state of Coahuila south of Mexican Highways 25 and 22 and the Alamos River for U.S. government employees assigned to Mexico. This restriction was implemented in light of the recent increase in assaults, murders, and kidnappings in those two states. The situation in northern Mexico remains fluid; the location and timing of future armed engagements cannot be predicted."

"A number of areas along the border are experiencing rapid growth in the rates of many types of crime. Robberies, homicides, petty thefts, and carjackings have all increased over the last year across Mexico generally, with notable spikes in Tijuana and northern Baja California. Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana and Nogales are among the cities which have recently experienced public shootouts during daylight hours in shopping centers and other public venues. Criminals have followed and harassed U.S. citizens traveling in their vehicles in border areas including Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and Tijuana."

"The situation in Ciudad Juarez is of special concern. Mexican authorities report that more than 1,800 people have been killed in the city since January 2008. Additionally, this city of 1.6 million people experienced more than 17,000 car thefts and 1,650 carjackings in 2008. U.S. citizens should pay close attention to their surroundings while traveling in Ciudad Juarez, avoid isolated locations during late night and early morning hours, and remain alert to news reports. A recent series of muggings near the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez targeted applicants for U.S. visas. Visa and other service seekers visiting the Consulate are encouraged to make arrangements to pay for those services using a non-cash method."

Just when I thought the federal government didn't care about this situation on the border, today there was news that there was a big bust of one of the most violent Mexican drug cartels.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr091708.html

"The Gulf Cartel is responsible for the transportation of multi-ton quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana from Colombia, Guatemala, Panama and Mexico to the United States, as well as the distribution of those narcotics within the United States. The Gulf Cartel is also believed to be responsible for laundering multiple millions of dollars in criminal proceeds. Individuals indicted in the cases are charged with a variety of crimes, including: drug trafficking charges related to cocaine and marijuana; solicitation and conspiracy to kidnap; attempted murder; conspiracy to use a firearm in a violent crime; conspiracy to kill and kidnap in a foreign country; interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering; money laundering; and other related crimes."

"To date, Project Reckoning has resulted in the arrest of 507 individuals and the seizure of approximately $60.1 million in U.S. currency, 16,711 kilograms of cocaine, 1,039 pounds of methamphetamine, 19 pounds of heroin, 51,258 pounds of marijuana, 176 vehicles and 167 weapons. Project Reckoning, a 15-month investigation, combined into one centrally coordinated effort several multi-district enforcement operations that all involved individuals with close ties to the Gulf Cartel. Operation Dos Equis , Operation Vertigo, Operation Stinger and Operation The Family as well as numerous local operations combined to form Project Reckoning."

These are just 2 paragraphs from the news release, you should really go read the whole article.

This is progress, but it also sheds light on the importance of the problem there. Not only is Mexico's economy unstable, but depending on who you ask, they are on the verge of civil war or already fighting one. We need to secure our border.

Does Anyone Care About Border Security?

2009-02-22T16:07:00.003-06:00

So this issue has been slipping out the forefront of a lot of people's minds, probably because of the dramatics as of late about just how terrible the economy is and how much we need to spend our way out of this recession to fix it. Since that's what 90% normal people do when things get tight at home, they go on a spending spree!!! so that should definitely work on the macro level too!!! (if you don't know my sarcasm yet, insert sarcasm here).

So I heard somewhere that last week Rick Perry put the state on high alert for the situation on the Texas Mexico border, which is what inspired me to write about this issue this week. So all weekend I went looking for his statement and found nothing. Neither could the person that told me. That doesn't mean it's not an important issue though. So I will share what I did find.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/83729 Has a posting that the Texas National Guard has been put on Red Alert and that Texas State Senator Dan Patrick went on Fox news the morning of Feb 20 to discuss this. Look at the article (which is identically posted on many blogs) to see what he supposedly said. Did any of you see this appearance? I did not so until I find definate proof of this appearance, I remain skeptical that the Texas National Guard is on red alert etc etc etc.

While I didn't find that appearance, I did find a link to an appearance he made on the Glen Beck show on Feb 16. But it appears to be different than what is referenced above since the points they say he laid out weren't in the Glen Beck discussion.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3624924&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494984,00.html
Or a link to the transcript of the discussion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494984,00.html
Take a look at one of them.

This is the link to the Texas Border Security Council Report to Governor Rick Perry in September 2008. Since it's kind of lengthy, you'll want to pay particular attention to the executive summary and the Recommendations.
http://governor.state.tx.us/files/homeland/Border-Security-Report.pdf

Here's the deal, this is the federal government's responsibility to take care of and they aren't doing anything about it. One reason for this is referenced in my last post relating to the census. Illegals flood our country and somehow gain the right to vote, and let the party promising a bunch of free stuff with the tax money of the "wealthy" buy their votes.

But you should all be concerned. http://www.cfirusa.org/facts.htm Look at California. They also share a border with Mexico and look where they are today. They are a notorious welfare state and probably have more illegals than Texas. And yet with all the filthy rich people that live their, they can't stay within their budget.

There is a huge problem with illegal births taking place here. As anyone who works in a hospital in Texas or any other border state. That is because the constitution has been improperly misinterpreted to give legal citizenship based on illegal acts. So that has been going on for years and who can blame them when we seem to be allowing it. A hospital is in no position to enforce this, especially when they have been put in the position of not turning away anyone that comes into the emergency room. And labor is usually considered an emergency.

There is a book you should read or listen to on cd if you're not a reader. "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America" by Patrick J. Buchanan. It address this issue and just how badly it is out of hand and needs to be addressed immediately. He addresses how many have come over and not assimilated to our culture and the threat it creates as they are taught that we stole part of Mexico from them and they need to get it back.

I don't know about you all, but I love the United States of America. And I don't think this is an issue we should let go by the wayside. I think Rick Perry ought to take the Texas share of the stimulus spending bill and use it on the border since the feds won't take responsibility for it. It's supposed to create jobs right? He can hire a bunch of people immediately to patrol the border 24 hrs a day. Let's line up a militia all the way across the Texas/Mexico border and heavily arm them to discourage anyone that would enter illegally as long as the money lasts. When it runs out maybe the Federal Gov will feel bad about the jobs that are lost and see the results and send more funding down there. It would be nice if the other border states would do the same thing. Maybe they'll see how serious we are about things being done legally around here and revert to legal methods of entry into our country.

What's you're opinion of this issue??

Commerce Secretary Nomination Withdrawal

2009-02-15T14:33:00.003-06:00

http://www.wmur.com/politics/18702350/detail.html

This is as good of a link as any to the story about the nomination withdrawal by Judd Gregg. It covers his statement. For those of you that don't know this was Obama's Republican pick after Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination for the position over potential follow the money scandal. Some feel that a republican pick for this position was a flimsy attempt "reach across the aisle" and have both democrats and republicans in his cabinet.

If you aren't sure what the department of commerce does, here is a link to their mission and organization.
http://dms.osec.doc.gov/cgi-bin/doit.cgi?204:112:f23c40e440fd58af1c94886c8dafe2a0115c34e0e318d0b74b9aa67fc54ea5be:288

Here's the deal. One of the big responsibilities over for this department was to handle the census. However Obama decided to take this responsibility away from the department of commerce and create a Census Bureau with a separate director. This is apparently one of the triggers that contributed to Gregg's decision to withdraw his name from the nomination.

Here's where I see a problem with census policy. If you give it to someone you have fundamental policy differences with, charge over the census, you might not get the numbers you want. For example we have a big issue with illegals in this country or people that are here on work visas only, depending on your beliefs you might think they ought to count towards the census or you might not. If you start to count them in the census as citizens, then you are setting legal precedence to allow them full citizenship even if they broke the law to get here. Which leads to the right to vote in elections. Hence why you would take that responsibility away from someone you appointed that you generally disagree with for political cooperation and give it to someone who's on board with your policies. That's just one problem I see offhand. I might be way off base and welcome any correction from anyone. I'm no expert. But neither has any other president been on every subject, so don't hold that against me in the next election.

As for the commerce department, other than the census, this might be one of the departments that I would dissolve when I get in office. I don't see much of a point of it and at this point think it is likely a bloated government bureaucracy that is not serving much purpose to the tax payers. I will have to do some more research over the next few years to determine if my initial assessment is a good one.

I'd like to know your opinion of Judd Gregg's action. Do you agree or disagree with it? Is it more complicated than that? do you care? I suppose if you don't care you didn't bother to read this far.

Emergency Post!!! A Compromise Stimulus???

2009-02-06T19:23:00.008-06:00

Word is that republican Senators Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe will cross over to vote with the democrats in a compromise bill that is still at $780 Billion!!!(update may actually be more like $830 Billion give or take) Ohh what a compromise...that was a VERY Generous compromise. 42% Tax cuts and 58% new spending. But we don't know what what the cuts are and what the spending is. If you still oppose this stimulus contact these senators and let them know. They are announcing this on Friday night since America isn't paying attention over the weekend. They will likely vote on it before the weekend is up.

This is the link to the congressional budget office's assessment of the bill that passed the house.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf
To sum it up, it basically says that the money that goes to the states for programs and infrastructure will not be realized immediately due to the time it takes to plan, solicit bids, enter into contracts, and conduct regulatory review. Also some business/work is seasonal in nature ie schools do repairs in the summer when school is out, and road work is generally not done in winter in many parts of the country. Brand new programs require planning, developing procedures, criteria, regulations, etc. "Throughout the federal government, spending for new programs has frequently been slower than expected and rarely been faster."

"CBO expects that many of the larger projects initiated with funds provided by H.R. 1 would take up to five to seven years to complete." If it's not spent immediately, how is this stimulating the economy?

One final thing to note, but you should go check it out.

"CBO estimates that the costs to the private sector of complying with H.R. 1's new
requirements and conditions would likely exceed the annual threshold established in
UMRA for private-sector mandates ($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for
inflation)."

Just because they don't represent your state, doesn't mean you can't write them and let them know your opinion.

http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssue&CFID=5075464&CFTOKEN=11385212

http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

For a list of any other senators you might want to contact
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

It's a shame that we have let our senators and representative get away with not representing us. It's time to get involved and take action and contact them in some way shape or form. Next time they are up for reelection, VOTE THEM OUT!!!!

The Economic Stimulus Plan

2009-02-01T13:34:00.003-06:00

Link to the House bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00001 :

$819 billion which is almost equal to the cost of an entire year of federal spending according to Wall Street Journal.
The Senate bill version is almost $900 billion at the time of that article.

We know that the no Republicans voted for it in the house version. My question is where were they on the bailout? Are they suddenly supporting fiscal restraint since their guy didn't win? Don't get me wrong, they need to oppose this to the grave and they need to oppose it in the senate. But that's from my perspective. Democrats should also be opposing this and taking into considerating the effects of such excessive spending.

Let me tell you what happens when the government's goal is to "create more jobs." Big fat bureaucracy that grows and grows and grows. How is that being fiscally responsible with the tax payers dollars? I'd rather leave it to the private sector to create more jobs by cutting corporate taxes. At least that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. Right I know "big evil corporations" we have to "stick it to them." The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I think we could afford to put this theory to the test.

It's important for us as Americans to know what's in the bill. I know what you're thinking, "it's really long!!!! How am I supposed to get through that?" Find summaries of it. The above link to the bill will bring up a table of contents that you can go through and look for sections of interest. Also the above link as the letter from the Congressional Budget Office that discusses the estimates of how much it will cost. Let's remember that's just an estimate. Leave it to the government to reserve the right to let spending get out of control.

I am of the view point that the government needs to stay out of the economy to let it recover and instead work towards paying off the national debt and encourage policies of personal responsibility and minimal debt, thereby setting an example to the general public.

Just remember if the strong middle class becomes dependent on the government, they are no longer strong. The government has succeeded at making them weak, ignorant, and oblivious. If we want to maintain a strong middle class, we must take personal responsiblity to stay educated and to fight government intrusion in our lives.

I know this is not eloquently written today, but I wanted to bring up the topic to encourage discussion and to encourage you all to write your Senators to let them know your opinion. Even if you don't agree with mine.

Please take the time to vote in the poll on the left as well. Previous poll results can be seen below.

Political Parties - Socialist

2009-01-25T08:46:00.012-06:00

I'm going to start these weekly posts with some recaps of the week the President and/or congress had and what I think about what he did. Unless I don't find anything I worth commenting on. So this week 2 points of interest happened. Actually more, but 2 that I'm going to comment on because they will give you insight into my thinking on policy.

Let's start with Guantanamo. I think it's a terrible idea to declare an executive order to shut down a prison that is holding, or potentially holding for you skeptics, terrorist threats to our country and the world without knowing what kind of people you are working with and having a plan of action for what you will do with them. I don't think it's good for them to be placed in general population prisons inside our borders, nor do I think releasing them to return to their terroristic ways is a good idea. So what is your plan President Obama? What I will say, is at least he gave it a year to change his mind.

Next issue is the executive order for federal funding of abortions domestically and abroad. What??? I don't care if you are pro-choice or pro-life, abortion is a very private choice and should be funded privately. And if we are going to assist foreign countries with anything, shouldn't it be on things that are more pressing such as hunger and disease? I'm much less offended at my tax dollars going for these issues than abortion. I actually heard a celebrity say that this was her most important issue that she hoped to see the president act on quickly. Really??? You care more about paying for the abortions of non-U.S. citizens than you do about getting them the basics they need to survive? I'm sorry but that is shameful. She should donate her own personal money to this cause if she feels that strongly about it, rather than hope, wish, and pray that the U.S. government spend tax dollars on it, when our economy is recessing. Just my opinion. And I would never spend public dollars on private decisions. I would encourage the private charity of citizens to the causes they feel strongly about.

Incidentally I emailed the White House on this topic (my key-board has large keys for my large paws...How do you think I write this blog?), and you are now limited to 500 characters. That's about enough for 2 short paragraphs or one medium one. You must choose your words wisely.

Now onto the Socialist party platform.

Labor

1. We support the right of any number of interested workers in a workplace to form a union with no limits on the subjects upon which employees and unions may bargain with employers.

....there are several other union related statements. See the website for the details.

Sure I support the right of the worker to unionize, but I also support the right of employers not to negotiate with unions if they choose not to. I support the right of the worker to find work wherever their skills are useful to the employer regardless of unionization.

9. We call for the same benefits for part-time workers as for full-time workers.

NO! This cannot be mandated. If a company wants to make this choice on their own, there's nothing wrong with that. But this adds expense to companies that make it difficult for them to compete in the free market or end up hurting the American consumer as the price of goods and services will rise to account for this added expense.

11. We support the creation of a fund for workers which would pay a worker’s full wages and health insurance as well as necessary educational and/or retraining costs if that worker loses a job due to environmental transition, down-sizing, corporate dismantlement, or capital flight.

It sounds ideal, but No. For further explanation, see the previous answer.

12. We call for a 30 hour work week at no loss of pay, with six weeks annual paid vacation.

What are we? Europe? No. No worker is worth 6 weeks of vacation after 1 day of work. The way companies choose to handle their vacation policies is fine now. Do you just expect them to close down for 6 weeks at a time? How are they supposed to pay for that vacation if their is zero productivity? And 30 hours full time? Again leave it up to the companies but 40 hours isn't asking too much.

13. We call for unions to stop using union funds for electing candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties.

Yes, I would agree with this as long as that extends to all political parties.

Economics

2. We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.
5. We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industries.
No. I believe in free market Capitalism. If you want ownership, buy stock.

3. We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.

The cost of living goes up as the minimum wage goes up, so raising the minimum wage will be a never ending process. I oppose this. Besides most of the people actually making minimum wage are in high school. If you can't improve your skills to make more than minimum wage, then you aren't worth more than minimum wage and you certainly aren't worth a $15 an hour minimum wage.

4. We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income.

Sounds ideal but is impossible. I refuse to fund those that refuse to work, Austin is a good example of this. Just about every intersection has someone standing on a corner holding a sign asking for money. When the McDonald's in front of them has a "hiring" sign in the window. Nor do I think companies should have to continue to pay employees that aren't productive.

6. We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes.
7. We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale.

If you think this one is a good idea, reread it. That means the most any one person can make is $150/hr. Calculate that out to the 30 hr work week and it is $234,000/year. That doesn't sound bad if you make less than that but with that steeply graduated income tax that will put those income earners closer in line with the minimum wage earners in take home pay. When you limit income, you limit tax revenue. What good will highly graduated capital gains and luxury taxes do after that highly graduated income tax on a maximum income greatly reduces the income of that family to no longer be able to afford to invest or buy luxuries? Also where's the incentive for investing if the government is going to take most of it.

I support the Fair Tax, and unrestricted income.

11. We call for a National Pension Authority to hold the assets of private pension funds, and a levy against corporate assets for any pension fund deficits.
I'm opposed to the nationalization of anything private. Give me an example of something private that should be nationalized and good reasons for it, and I'll consider changing my mind. But very few things if any should be nationalized.

12. We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer.
I call for an end to preposterous statements (just kidding I value free speech). Let's be honest here, I'm going to get fired from my job and remain "unemployed" for the rest of my life if you put no limits on unemployment. This isn't practical and doesn't encourage the reemployment of anyone.

15. We call for the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare.
I'll agree with this since I support the Fair Tax.

Human Rights
Arts and Culture

The Socialist Party believes that art is an integral part of daily life, and should not be treated as a commodity produced by the activity of an elite group. All members of society should have ample opportunities for participation in art and cultural activities.

1. We support the formation of collectives, arts centers and schools, independent media, theaters and festivals to advance such cultural endeavors as music, poetry, prose, drama, dance, storytelling, visual art, and videography.
I support various art forms in public schools. On larger level I oppose federal funding of these centers, festivals, etc., but encourage the private funding (private donations) to make these things happen as they do now.

2. We support guaranteed incomes and grants for artists and performers.
Absolutely not. Otherwise we'll have a country full of unemployed artists based on unemployment benefits at 100% of their income.

4. We call for full funding of community and school arts programs for people of all ages.
No, outside of regular schooling, this is a private activity and I oppose the public funding of private activities.

Education

The Socialist Party recognizes the right of students of all ages to a free, quality education in a safe and supportive environment, and of all school employees to good wages, benefits, and working conditions.

1. We call for full and equal funding of public education; for the restoration of a comprehensive K-12 curriculum, including art, music, world languages, and physical education; for an end to all public funding of private schools; and for free tuition and full-time teachers with full benefits (not "adjuncts") at the post-secondary level.
Let's remember, nothing is free.

2. We support public child care starting from infancy, and public education starting at age three, with caregivers and teachers of young children receiving training, wages, and benefits comparable to that of teachers at every other level of the educational system.
Absolutely not. This discourages personal responsibility and once again having a child is a private choice. Just as putting them in daycare is a private choice that should not be paid for with public funds.

3. We oppose merit pay for teachers, standardized testing, competition between schools within the same district, the sale of on-campus advertising in order to raise funds, and the increasing dependence of post-secondary institutions on corporate funding.
This is ridiculous. I support competition between teachers and schools. Pay the good teachers more. I also support the money following the child not the child following the money. This means parents can choose what school to send their kids to, public, private or otherwise. This encourages competition.

Health Care

The Socialist Party stands for a socialized health care system based on universal coverage, salaried doctors and health care workers, and revenues derived from a steeply graduated income tax.
With their ideas on taxes and income, funding coverage and doctors will be virtually impossible. They will have to limit who goes to the doctor and what kinds of conditions deserve treatment. And if you're over the age of oh 45 or 50, forget it.

3. We call for full funding for AIDS research, prevention, and treatment. We demand full civil rights for people living with AIDS.
Why are people so focused on AIDS when Cancer is a much larger problem that isn't always based on poor behavior. I oppose the public funding of anymore AIDS research as it is now a disease you can live with for a very long time. But I encourage the private research. Same with Cancer. Private funding of research. You should all donate to St. Jude's, or some other research cause. This also goes for stem cell research. Private funding.

Housing

The Socialist Party recognizes the right of all people to high quality, low cost housing.
I recognize the right to find a place you can afford within your means. But I oppose any increase in section 8 funding. In fact I tend to think it ought to be eliminated.

5. We call for an end to home foreclosures
I call for an end to people taking out and getting loans that they can't afford. No they should not be able to keep them if they can't afford them.

Immigration

The Socialist Party works to build a world in which everyone will be able to freely move across borders, to visit and to live wherever they choose.

We recognize the central role global capitalism plays in forcing the immigration of people from the less developed to the more industrialized countries, often leading to further economic and social injustice.

1. We support secular democratic states, assuring equal rights to every citizen and resident in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2. We oppose the militarization of the United States/Mexican border, and an increase in the service budget instead of the "military" budget of the INS.
3. We defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people. We oppose the imposition of any fees on those receiving amnesty.
4. We call for an end to the use of "secret evidence" in deportation hearings, a ban on all immigration detentions and military tribunals, and full due process and habeus corpus rights in U.S. courts for all non-citizens on U.S. territory or in U.S. custody.
5. We demand an end to police raids in areas where immigrants congregate.
6. We oppose "guest worker" programs. We call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months.
I oppose this. In an perfect world this would be fine but this isn't a perfect world and we will loose our identity as the United States and are already in danger of this now. For more information on this, read "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America" by Patrick J. Buchanan.

Media and Intellectual Property

An ever-smaller band of huge corporations controls virtually all news and entertainment media. The Socialist Party stands for the right of ordinary people to express opinions and communicate freely by vastly extending the public sector of all forms of mass media. Ultimately, a genuine democratization of the mass media will require a democratic socialist transformation of society. Within such a society, free expression will flourish, allowing for the broadest expression of viewpoints and perspectives.

1. We support the breakup of large media companies so that no one company or individual owns more than one newspaper, radio or television station, or television channel. We call for the re-regulation of the communications industry (in particular, the assertion of public ownership rights over radio and television frequencies).
2. We call for government ownership of satellite and cable companies with revenues generated by these operations allocated to a publicly controlled fund to finance innovative visual and audio programming (including movies), over the air radio and television, and cable and satellite programming. The fund would also greatly increase the money going to community cable programming.
3. We support public funding of newspapers and magazines. Any non-profit organization that publishes a journal would receive public funding in proportion to its paid subscriber list.
4. We oppose all efforts to trim "fair use" rights, such as the right to excerpt a copyrighted work in a review.
5. We call for the repeal of all existing copyright extension laws.
6. We oppose legislation to force electronics manufacturers to build "Digital Rights Management" into computers and appliances.
7. We oppose private ownership of the Internet backbone. We call for direct public ownership of at least 50% of the total bandwidth and for democratic ownership and control of the Internet domain naming system.
Here's what happens when the government owns and controls all forms of media, it feeds the public a bunch of propaganda, brainwashing them to follow/depend on the government because they will tell you only what they approve for you to know even if they make it up. And you'd have no means of verifying what they are telling you. And repealing copyright laws takes away private ownership of any publication and the government ultimately becomes the final say on what gets printed. I know this sounds extreme but learn from history. Doesn't anyone remember a man called Adolf Hitler? These policies are a slippery slope setting things up for a leader who happens to be that corrupt. I don't know that any of us believe our leaders don't all have a certain amount of corruption in them. Well except for their representative that they keep reelecting.

Civil Rights
Bill of Rights
The Socialist Party is committed to the rights of free speech, free press, free assembly, and personal privacy, and the freedom of religious choice through the separation of church and state.

1. We condemn the so-called War on Terrorism and call for the immediate repeal of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Acts and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
I think Terrorism is real against the US and other countries and I don't condemn the war on Terror.
2. We call for the elimination of the Dept.of Homeland Security and the sweeping police powers accorded to it.
I actually agree with this, but because it's role should be covered in the Department of Defence and is therefore a redundant function with a bloated beauracracy.
4. We call for the abolition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
I might actually support this as I believe in states rights. But I'd have to further research the role of the FBI related to the duties of state and local police agencies.

There are more issues they list on the website, and as always if you'd like to to expand on an issue, or talk about something I didn't put in this post, just ask me to in the comments and I will.

As we have found from today the socialist party is not my party. Here is what I will say about their ideas and policies. They are very utopian and might work in a world without sin and the inherent selfishness of people. But we don't live in that world. Perhaps heaven will be a bit socialistic, but without the economy issues. We will work together for the good of each other rather than worry about how much we are getting paid. But God is much bigger than the government and can provide us with all we need there. The governments only solution is to take from its personally responsible citizens to share with those who don't put in their fair share. So socialism in this world is not the ideal. Look at the declining population in much of Europe. You can't support socialism/social programs with a declining population. Our social programs are in danger of collapsing and we still have positive population growth. Think what happens if we extend our social programs to every single person. These will not be the policies of my presidency.

The Personal Side of Lola

2009-01-16T16:04:00.017-06:00

Since the American people are interested in the personal side to the candidates for president, I thought I'd share some photos of the vacation I just returned from. I went to Colorado to enjoy the snow and some leisure time with some friends. I hope you enjoy the photos as much as I enjoyed my vacation.

Chelsea is the Lab and Lady is the Golden Retriever (full or mix, we aren't sure but she is loved just the same)

I learned just how much I love the snow

I'm easy going, I don't need any fancy dishes

We were wore out and tired after a fun day in the snow

Venturing into the unknown is very exciting for me.

I hope you enjoyed the personal side of me. I like to have a good time just like all of you. Yet I know how important it is to preserve our country and our freedoms to continue to have a good time in the future.

Political Parties - Libertarian

2009-01-04T21:07:00.014-06:00

I'm back to my quest for a political party identification and my secondary quest to educate those who care to learn about the various beliefs of the different parties regardless of how minor or major. I hope you all had a Merry Christmas and I hope you have a Happy New Year.

Today I will discuss the Libertarian party and their issues and my opinions agreeing or dissenting. My discussion below is in red. For a complete list of their platform, please go to the following link as I will probably remove some in the essence of time if I feel they are somewhat repetitive or if they are issues that I tend to ignore when making my decision on who to vote for. Feel free to ask me my opinion on anything I've left out, related to the Libertarian Party.

http://www.lp.org/platform

1.0 Personal LibertyIndividuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Yes I agree with this completely. You'll have to ask me specific questions if you want me to expand on this.

1.2 Personal Privacy: We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

I tend to agree with this until someone can present me with a good example of a victimless crime that should be prosecuted. The government shouldn't be responsible for trying to protect people from their own bad choices that hurt only themselves and not others. However I believe the libertarian party has historically been labeled as the party that wants to "legalize drugs" so much so that the other issues aren't even taken seriously. They need to focus on repositioning themselves as crusaders for limited government, balanced budgets, and reduced spending.

1.5 Crime and Justice: Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

I also agree with this statement, which expands on the last statement beyond drugs.

2.0 Economic Liberty: A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Absolutely. The government needs to return the free market back to freedom and quit interfering. By the poll results on the left, most people agree with this whether they realize it or not.

2.1 Property and Contract: Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

I concur...

2.3 Energy and Resources: While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

I tend to agree with this unless cost of the absence of government control exceeds the cost of government intervention. However subsidizing corn for ethanol is absolutely a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars, which leads me to believe that any government intervention is a complete waste.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending: All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

Yes. I agree. However this is idealistic to make such major cuts even for republicans who were formerly the party of small government. The lack of compromise or support for ideas like the Fair Tax isn't helping them. They need to be open to suggestions that are a step in the right direction rather than vehemently oppose such things on principle. Because let's be honest, probably 95% of Americans, regardless of party affiliation are going to vote away Medicare, Medicaid, and social security even if you show them that it won't be available to them until they are 85 or 90.

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations: We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

I absolutely agree with this.

2.7 Labor Markets: We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

Yes I agree with this, as long as there is no pressure political or otherwise, for a company such as oh GM and Ford, to continue negotiating with the unions at all cost. Remember the bailout is going to the unions. But if people want to unionize so be it as long as they are reasonable and expect reason from union leaders.

2.8 Education: Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe in school choice, money follows the kid not the kid following the money.

2.9 Health Care: We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

I believe the free market works better than the fiasco system we have now. That said health care is the responsibility of the individual not the government.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security: Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

I agree that retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, however the individual has been relying on the government for this for so long that if it weren't automatically taken out of their check, many wouldn't save a dime for retirement. What I favor is complete privatization of the compulsory system. Part of privatization includes allowing individuals to choose the government as a manager of their account. But only those tax dollars will go to support the government bureaucracy in place to manage their accounts. What you want to bet they would still outsource to a private company?

3.0 Securing Liberty: The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

I generally agree with this. There are exceptions to this, but as a general rule this is a good principle to follow. The thing to remember is some governments want no reasonable/rational relationship with other governments and if they refuse to operate on this principle, it's likely impossible to adhere to this principle in the name of protecting the liberty of our nation.

3.1 National Defense: We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

I generally agree with this as well, however please see my previous response. It applies here as well. I do oppose compulsory national service in spite of the the good it could do in helping a lot of people grow up and become disciplined respectful people.

3.3 International Affairs: American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

This is a complicated issue, but I generally agree with it in theory. Sadly it may be a bit idealistic. My question is why do some people insist we get involved in places like Darfur and Rwanda but want us to stay out of Iraq? It would be one thing if they opposed intervention in both places but they don't. People were being terrorized in Iraq. People are being terrorized in Darfur. What's the difference? I'm not a foreign policy expert so I welcome reasonable feedback addressing my questions. When I say reasonable, I mean avoid hateful, irrational, swearing. If you can't form a thought without swearing at me, I don't want to hear it.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration: We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

I disagree with this. I believe sanctions on other countries are at times necessary. I believe complete monitoring of who's coming across our borders and why, not just of those who pose a threat to security, health, or property. I believe in legal immigration and legal border crossing. I oppose open borders. For a detailed analysis on why open borders is a threat to our nation, read or buy this book on CD. "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America" by Patrick J. Buchanan.

3.6 Representative Government: We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

Yes, if you want further explanation, you'll have to ask me to expand on a specific point. Let's just say I haven't felt represented very well over the last year of my life.

3.7 Self-Determination: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

Absolutely!

I find it interesting that more people don't identify with the libertarian party. I don't think anyone agrees to "T" on every issue of any party. I also find it amusing how people on the far right see libertarians and way liberal, and people on the far left see them as too conservative. In reality, so far I think they are the most moderate party out there. They just haven't done an effective job of presenting their ideas, or coming across to most people as anything but unyielding, unopen to discussion, nutjobs who only care about legalizing drugs. Sometimes they are seen as only caring about the economy. But I find it interesting that many elections are decided on the economy. The sad thing is they are probably the party of personal responsibility and that leaves a bad taste in many peoples' mouths.

They are also very unorganized. They seem more concerned with getting numbers of candidates running rather than quality candidates in a few good positions. Our local election for example was littered with libertarian candidates who either barely had a website, or who posted only the libertarian talking points on their website rather than stating what they believe even if it did deter from the libertarian platform at times. Although I have seen some progress. Look at Ron Paul. He's basically a libertarian, but had the foresight to see that he'd only get elected (to his senate seat) running on the republican ticket. However once he starts running his mouth, most people see him as a crazy nutjob and don't take him seriously. If you were to read anything he writes with any other unknown name on it, you'd say he's dead on. Unless you're fascist or communist.

I'm not declaring a party yet as there are many other perhaps unknown parties out there to explore.

Christmas Special - Ponzi Scheme

2008-12-21T19:30:00.004-06:00

I'm taking a break from my review of various political parties to discuss current events. We will continue after the new year.

If you haven't heard the news yet, read the story at the following link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081212/bs_nm/us_madoff_arrest
Basically speaking Bernard L. Madoff was arrested in $50 Billion scam he was running that came to a head. He was offering people high returns and then paying them off with future investors. Apparently he ran out of investors to keep up with the returns he was promising and the SEC finally caught him. He said he was basically running a Ponzi Scheme.

For those of you that don't know what a Ponzi Scheme is, the SEC actually defines it for you.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

"Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. Ponzi thought he could take advantage of differences between U.S. and foreign currencies used to buy and sell international mail coupons. Ponzi told investors that he could provide a 40% return in just 90 days compared with 5% for bank savings accounts. Ponzi was deluged with funds from investors, taking in $1 million during one three-hour period—and this was 1921! Though a few early investors were paid off to make the scheme look legitimate, an investigation found that Ponzi had only purchased about $30 worth of the international mail coupons.
Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses. For more information, please read pyramid schemes in our Fast Answers databank."

The point of this post is not to discuss this case. The point of this is to open your eyes to a Ponzi Scheme that the government is running that we are all victims of. Many of us willing victims. It's called Social Security. The system depends on population growth and productive members of society to take social security tax from in order to pay out the current recipients of the payments. I guess the only difference is that the government just doesn't promise outrageously great returns. But the government does keep promising to take care of you in retirement with social security and Medicare benefits that keep getting bigger and bigger. Most of my generation assumes the system will go bust before we reach retirement, so in essence, they are promising bigger returns than they can deliver in the long run.

But the American people don't want to privatize the system, they'd like to keep it going as is in hopes that they'll still get theirs. Because the government has always been dependable.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!

Political Parties - Democratic

2008-12-14T17:00:00.008-06:00

Welcome to Part 2 in our series exploring the various positions of the political parties and what I agree with and disagree with. This week we will explore the platform of the Democratic party as found in their platform on their website http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html.
I will do my best to abbreviate the positions listed as this is a 59 page document. Feel free to read it in it's entirety if you so desire.

Excerpt from their Preamble
"We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last."

"Today, we pledge a return to core moral principles like stewardship, service to others, personal responsibility, shared sacrifice and a fair shot for all –values that emanate from the integrity and optimism of our Founders and generations of Americans since."

Jumpstart the Economy and Provide Middle Class Americans Immediate Relief "We will provide an immediate energy rebate to American families struggling with the record price of gasoline and the skyrocketing cost of other necessities – to spend on those basic needs and energy efficient measures. We will devote $50 billion to jumpstarting the economy, helping economic growth, and preventing another one million jobs from being lost."

I'm going to sound really redundant after awhile, especially when you consider all their talk of reducing taxes for 95% of Americans. How are they going to pay for this? How does $50 Billion prevent one million jobs from being lost?

Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans "If one thing came through in the platform hearings, it was that Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive healthcare."

"Ensuring quality, affordable health care for every single American is essential to children’s education, workers’ productivity and businesses’ competitiveness. We believe that covering all is not just a moral imperative, but is necessary to making our health system workable and affordable. Doing so would end cost-shifting from the uninsured, promote prevention and wellness, stop insurance discrimination, help eliminate health care disparities, and achieve savings through competition, choice, innovation, and higher quality care."

I like the idea of affordable health care for everyone, but only in the context of personal responsibility and free market competition. My theory is that the insurance companies have become and overwhelming middleman in the health care business. Providers have to pay large staff to bill insurance companies and are also subject to contract rates with insurance companies. The insurance companies have the leverage in negotiating these rates since they are the ones essentially providing the clientele. The insurance companies in turn have to make enough and pay out little enough to pay their employees and make a profit. Think about the cost of health care when you eliminate this kind of overhead created by a middleman.

In reality Walmart's push to start the prescription drug plan for $4 generics is the right idea. Other pharmacies followed suit. Drug companies aren't going to participate if they aren't making money, and neither will the pharmacies. This type of push ought to be made in provider care as well. In reality, it is available. Patients without insurance can negotiate self-pay rates for procedures with the doctor and the facility. Places like Walmart and other superstores are opening up preventative care clinics in their stores that offer low cost preventative screenings.
Main stream providers could move this direction by essentially running "cash only" businesses and listing their prices for various services. I've also heard of a doctor charging one yearly fee that will cover all visits for the year regardless. It's ideas like this that will revolutionize health care and help to eliminate the bloated middleman system.

That said there is a need for catastrophic insurances for accidents, or a buffet type, choose your insurance coverage. For example, if you know cancer runs in your family, you might opt into a cancer policy for life or at a certain age. But the providers that need to take them are generally specialty providers.

"We must fight HIV/AIDS in our country and around the world. We support increased funding into research, care and prevention of HIV/AIDS."

I disagree with government funding of HIV/AIDS research. I also disagree with government funding of Cancer research and stem cell research. I do, on the other hand, support privatized funding for research of all of these. St. Jude's successfully raises money every year from private donors like you and I. I am not opposed to government funds being used to educate and prevent any disease, but within reason.

"Fiscal Responsibility. As we improve and strengthen our health care system, we must do so in a fiscally responsible way that ensures that we get value for the dollars that are invested."

I would agree, however I think we have to come to an agreement on the definition of "fiscal responsibility."

Retirement and Social Security "We will make it a priority to secure for hardworking families the part of the American Dream that includes a secure and healthy retirement. Individuals, employers, and government must all play a role. We will adopt measures to preserve and protect existing public and private pension plans. In the 21st century, Americans also need better ways to save for retirement. We will automatically enroll every worker in a workplace pension plan that can be carried from job to job and we will match savings for working families who need the help."

How can you possibly pay to match savings for working families who need help? how do you define "needing help." Is there incentive for them to rise above "needing help." This sounds like income redistribution which I am vehemently opposed to. I do support private entities and churches providing help to those who "need help."

"We reject the notion of the presumptive Republican nominee that Social Security is a disgrace; we believe that it is indispensable. We will fulfill our obligation to strengthen Social Security and to make sure that it provides guaranteed benefits Americans can count on, now and in future generations. We will not privatize it."

I would privatize Social Security. I think Social Security is great for everyone if they get to keep what they put in. But they should own each and every penny that they put into it. When you get a chance look at Galveston County's model. This is a link to one of many articles discussing it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm

Good Jobs with Good Pay "Democrats are committed to an economic policy that produces good jobs with good pay and benefits. That is why we support the right to organize. We know that when unions are allowed to do their job of making sure that workers get their fair share, they pull people out of poverty and create a stronger middle class. We will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions and fight to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. We will restore pro-worker voices to the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board and we support overturning the NLRB’s and NMB’s many harmful decisions that undermine the collective bargaining rights of millions of workers. We will ensure that federal employees, including public safety officers who put their lives on the line every day, have the right to bargain collectively, and we will fix the broken bargaining process at the Federal Aviation Administration. We will fight to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so that workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods."

I support the right to organize, but I also support the right of any company to refuse to negotiate with unions at any time. Look at the auto bail out now. It is a bailout to support the unions not the auto companies themselves. Unions are a bureaucratic hierarchy that suck money out of the company in the form of dues from the employees. Companies have to be able to cut the fat out of their business to succeed.

"In America, if someone is willing to work, he or she should be able to make ends meet and have the opportunity to prosper. To that end, we will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation, and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit so that workers can support themselves and their families. We will modernize the unemployment insurance program to close gaps and extend benefits to the workers who now fall outside it."

I disagree with raising the minimum wage. The majority of the people making minimum wage are high school students. If you can't rise above minimum wage, then you probably aren't worth more. Raising minimum wage unnecessarily puts a strain on businesses and subsequently consumers in the from of increased prices for goods and services. Even people working in many of the fast food restaurants are making more than minimum wage. When you raise minimum wage the above unions talk their workers into going on strike because they need to have their wages adjusted to follow suit with minimum wage. So any company dealing with unions are also affected drastically by raising the minimum wage.

Opportunity for Women "We will pass the “Lilly Ledbetter” Act, which will make it easier to combat pay discrimination; we will pass the Fair Pay Act; and we will modernize the Equal Pay Act. We will invest in women-owned small businesses and remove the capital gains tax on start-up small businesses. We will support women in math and science, increasing American competitiveness by retaining the best workers in these fields, regardless of gender. We recognize that women still carry the majority of childrearing responsibilities, so we have created a comprehensive work and family agenda."

Notice the statement "remove capital gains tax on start-up small businesses." Small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes woman owned or not. They pay income taxes. So don't buy into this rhetoric. Next, I believe we are already at a point where men and women are equal in the work place. If women are making less, is it possible it has to do with them leaving the work force for a few years to raise their children? Or if their children are in daycare, are they leaving work more often than men to go pick up their sick kids? I think any kind of absenteeism is fair to consider with men or women.

"We will work to combat violence against women."

I'd revise this to violence against people, not just women. What happened to the mantra, "we are all created equal?"

A World Class Education for Every Child "We must set high standards for our children, but we must also hold ourselves accountable–our schools, our teachers, our parents, business leaders, our community and our elected leaders."

I agree with holding oursleves accountable.

"We will make quality, affordable early childhood care and education available to every American child from the day he or she is born. Our Children’s First Agenda, including increases in Head Start and Early Head Start, and investments in high-quality Pre-K, will improve quality and provide learning and support to families with children ages zero to five. Our Presidential Early Learning Council will coordinate these efforts."

This is essentially free daycare in the form of "education." I oppose funding daycare because when you choose to take on the responsibility of children, you should be responsible for caring for them or paying for their care. And remember free daycare isn't free. So how are they going to pay for this one?

Support Small Business and Entrepreneurship "Encouraging new industry and creating jobs means giving more support to American entrepreneurs. We will exempt all start-up companies from capital gains taxes and provide them a tax credit for health insurance. We will provide a new tax credit for small businesses that offer quality health insurance to their employees. We will help small businesses facing high energy costs. We will work to remove bureaucratic barriers for small and start-up businesses–for example, by making the patent process more efficient and reliable."

Again with the capital gains taxes for start-up companies. They don't pay capital gains taxes so this is an empty statement. However I like the tax credit idea for offering health insurance to their employees. I also agree with removing the bureaucratic barriers, but for more than just the patent process. For all of it.

Real Leadership for Rural America "Rural America is home to 60 million Americans. The agricultural sector is critical to the rural economy and to all Americans. We depend on those in agriculture to produce the food, feed, fiber, and fuel that support our society. Thankfully, American farmers possess an unrivaled capacity to produce an abundance of these high-quality products. In return, we will provide a strong safety net for family farms, a permanent disaster relief program, expansion of agriculture research, and an emphasis on agricultural trade. We will promote economic development in rural and tribal communities by investing in renewable energy, which will transform the rural economy and create millions of new jobs, by upgrading technological and physical infrastructure, by addressing the challenges faced by public schools in rural areas, including forest county schools, supporting higher education opportunities and by attracting quality teachers, doctors and nurses through loan forgiveness programs and other incentive programs. All Americans, urban and rural, hold a shared interest in preserving and increasing the economic vitality of family farms. We will continue to develop and advance policies that promote sustainable and local agriculture, including funding for soil and water conservation programs."

This is fancy talk for farm subsidies which I stated last week that I vehemently oppose. If people can't support themselves on farms and in rural areas, they should go somewhere that they can support themselves.

Restoring Fairness to Our Tax Code "We must reform our tax code."

I agree with restoring fairness to our tax code and reforming it. Nothing that followed supported these statements. I suppose there might just be a fundamental disagreement on what "fair" means. The Fair Tax is the fairest method I've discovered so far.

Revitalizing and Supporting the Military, Keeping Faith With Veterans "To renew American leadership in the world, we must revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace."

I agree with a strong military being necessary to sustain peace.

Allow All Americans to Serve "We will also put national security above divisive politics.... We support the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and the implementation of policies to allow qualified men and women to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation"

I agree. Qualified people who perform and act professional in their jobs should be able to serve in the military as they are in every other job in the country.

Stewardship of Our Planet and Natural Resources "Global climate change is the planet’s greatest threat, and our response will determine the very future of life on this earth. Despite the efforts of our current Administration to deny the science of climate change and the need to act, we still believe that America can be earth’s best hope."

I find it interesting that this party denies science that disproves man made climate change. That said I agree with stewardship of our planet and natural resources.

Children and Families Fatherhood "Too many fathers are missing–missing from too many lives and too many homes. Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and are more likely to commit crime, drop out of school, abuse drugs, and end up in prison. We need more fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to understand that what makes a man is not the ability to have a child–it’s the courage to raise one."

I agree whole-heartedly with this statement and the need to work towards correcting this. I have a theory that mandatory birth control would fix this, but it generally goes against my strong belief in liberty as well. I don't have a solution but I highly respect the efforts of high-profile people like Bill Cosby and others in this area.

Open, Accountable, and Ethical Government "In Barack Obama’s Administration, we will open up the doors of democracy. We will use technology to make government more transparent, accountable, and inclusive."

"We will lift the veil of secret deals in Washington by publishing searchable, online information about federal grants, contracts, earmarks, loans, and lobbyist contacts with government officials."

"We will put all non-emergency bills that Congress has passed online for five days, to allow the American public to review and comment on them before they are signed into law."

I want you all to watch in the new administration and see just how transparent and accountable they become in these areas. Because I agree with every one of them, but on the last one, if the representatives and senators don't listen to the public before casting their votes, why would we expect the President to? I suppose, if he cares about getting reelected, he'd care. So watch out for this and utilize it if they truly follow through on this.

I leave you with one final thought, with all the ideals they want and without explanation on how they will fund these programs, how do they plan to pay for it and still give 95% of Americans tax cuts?

Political Parties - Republican

2008-12-07T15:14:00.004-06:00

I intend to do a series of posts covering various political parties and where they generally stand on the issues as related to their various websites or perhaps previous candidates. The point of this exercise is to help educate you on the various beliefs of the parties as well as where I stand in comparison to those beliefs. I intend to discuss what I agree with and what I disagree with in an effort identify myself with a party, even if that means creating a new one. This is because independent candidates for president rarely if ever get taken seriously. I will start with the Republican party as that is the party that just lost in a big way. I don't consider myself a Republican, which may come as a surprise to many of you. That doesn't mean I don't agree with some of their philosophies.

In an effort to abbreviate this, I'm going to reference the McCain's presidential website.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
However for the official Republican party platform for 2008, feel free to read this.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/

Energy
"Our nation's future security and prosperity depends on the next President making the hard choices that will break our nation's strategic dependence on foreign sources of energy and will ensure our economic prosperity by meeting tomorrow's demands for a clean portfolio." I agree that we have to break our dependence on foreign sources of energy, which means utilizing our own resources. Oil comes from the earth, it's part of the earth. It's natural. It's not going to hurt our earth to utilize this oil. Nuclear war will hurt our earth way more than drilling.

National Security/Homeland Security
"the highest priority for any President is protecting the lives of American citizens, defending their personal freedom, and securing our land and resources." - I agree with this, however I believe National Security and Homeland Security is redundant and has been unnecessarily bloated. The department of defense is sufficient to coordinate this effort. Maybe money saved could be redirected towards the care of our veterans and towards enforcing immigration laws.

Health Care
"the rapidly rising cost of U.S. health care. Bringing costs under control is the only way to stop the erosion of affordable health insurance, save Medicare and Medicaid, protect private health benefits for retirees, and allow our companies to effectively compete around the world. " I'm not really sure what this says. What I believe is that the government is not the answer to health care. People need to understand that health care isn't a right, they need to make it a priority if they don't want to go bankrupt by it. The problem is that people don't want to take responsibility for it because it's expensive. So they moan that they can't afford it, but they sure can afford cable, cell phones, and that new car, etc. It's about priorities. At the very least everyone needs to make a priority for some kind of catastrophic policy and save enough to preventatively see the doctor every other year or so. They have self pay rates. Find out what they are, it might not be as expensive as you think. Find a clinic to go to that offers low cost care. Most pharmacies now have a low cost prescription plan for generic drugs. Companies making big moves like this will help to bring affordable health care to everyone. But people have to make it their priority over cable, cell phones, new clothes, new cars, etc.

Education
To sum it up, his site says "excellence, choice, and competition in American education."
I agree with that but have seen no effort in my state, a traditionally republican state, to make a move towards this. And I haven't seen a federal push for it either. The department of education should go. Education should be left to the states. Perhaps the cost would go down if there wasn't a bloated department of education sucking up valuable dollars that could actually go towards education rather than wasteful administration of it.

Agricultural Policies
"America's agricultural industry is the best in the world. John McCain will expand access for U.S. agricultural producers to foreign markets, providing a great and lasting benefit to American farmers. He will work tirelessly to ensure our farmers receive fair prices for their products. "
I don't believe it is the responsibility of the government to get involved with "fair prices" for corn or any other agriculture. It should be left up to the free market. If a someone can't make money as a farmer, it means he wasn't meant to be a farmer and should look for a new career. I can't make money as an actress, it doesn't mean the government should pay me money because I declare myself an actress if I can't make a sufficient living at it. I vehemently oppose farm subsidies.

Immigration
"our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure." I agree with this statement, and quite honestly I feel this falls under the realm of national security. Enforcing the laws and rules we have now will take care of much of this problem.

Environment/Climate Change
"John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy. He will work with our international partners to secure our energy future, to create opportunities for American industry, and to leave a better future for our children." The republicans fail to effectively turn the climate change discussion into something we can all agree on, clean air, clean water, a clean world. McCain took the position that climate change is within our control and backed policies that took on man-made global warming.

My position is that it is arrogant to sell that mere humans can control the global climate. Sure there are temperature cycles, but we ourselves are not big enough collectively to control that. Policies that unnecessarily attempt to control this by taxation, or carbon credits are useless and wasteful. What I do believe is that we been given a responsibility to care for this earth. I believe that it is not our right to tell Brazil they can't cut down trees that are creating jobs in that country. But we should offer to teach them our methods of replanting, if in fact they are not already replanting what they cut down. It is not our right to tell people in 3rd world countries living in the bush that they can't build fires to boil water and cook their food any more than we can tell cows to stop pooing.

Getting in the way of progress in 3rd world countries is doing more to harm the environment than butting out and letting them handle it and offering assistance. For example, malaria is non existent in this country and most other industrialized nations, but it's killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. The U.S. was sprayed long before I was born to get rid of the mosquitoes that were passing it around. Why can't the same be done for them? Just give them all masks to wear during this time. They didn't cover their faces here and people lived.

Home Ownership
"America's families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance home ownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage." I believe personal responsibility is the right of every family who has worked hard enough to finance a home, meaning it is their responsibility not to get in over their head. It is also their responsibility to work with their lenders if they are in trouble. The banks often made bad lending choices and they should also make efforts to keep to work with clients to avoid bad loans. Neither should come running to the government for pay for their mistakes, they should work towards a solution without government dollars.

The Economy
Generally the republican position has been keep taxes low, small government. They haven't practiced this in years that I no longer believe that they really believe this. I think they use this as a talking point to convince their base to "trust them" to get reelected. Here's the problem I have; take a look at your local state government. What are your republicans doing? Here in Texas they actually passed a steroid testing program for public schools. Are you kidding me?? They are behind much of the "nanny state" legislation that gets passed or at the very least are supporting it. The thing is it's about making sure someone else's kid isn't doing steroids, giving them and "unfair" advantage. Is it really necessary to waste state dollars on this to find a few kids? So I have a problem with "small government" belonging to the republicans because they don't practice this at all. So I'm taking it for my own. I really mean it when I say small or limited government intervention.

Let me sum up a couple of other beliefs that I share with the republicans. Right to carry and constitutional judges. I believe you have a right to bear arms. I think if we all assumed every one we met was also carrying a weapon, we'd think twice about how we treated each other. Criminals would think twice about robbing a place if they assumed that every house and convenience store had a gun to protect them. They don't even want to deal with someone who will fight back which is why they look for weak victims.

Judges should not legislate from the bench, it is their duty to uphold the constitution.

There were a few other topics covered that I chose not to go into, but if you have questions about where I stand on an issue, feel free to ask. Next week I'll attempt to cover the Democratic party.

My Tax Plan

2008-11-30T15:50:00.007-06:00

My tax plan is simple. Many of you may have heard about it by now, and one Republican candidate actually ran with it as a plan he would push for. He was the only candidate on either side offering something legitimately different than the status quo i.e. "tax cuts" or "raising taxes on the wealthy." It is the Fair Tax. I will do my best to summarize here but you can read up on it in more detail at http://www.fairtax.org/. There are a few changes I would like to make to it, but it's a good starting foundation for now.

Basically speaking, it eliminates the income and payroll taxes and replaces them with a national sales tax. There are states now, like Texas and Florida, that utilize this general philosophy on the state level to collect and manage their general revenue. They don't collect income taxes in addition to property and sales tax. What this means at the national level is that you only pay taxes when you consume. You get to keep 100% of your paycheck!! It also means that people that don't pay income taxes now would pay taxes when they consume in our country. This includes illegal aliens, tourists, anyone paid in cash now that doesn't file income taxes.

This is a solution that is beneficial to everyone as it takes care of social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other popular welfare programs that everyone doesn't want to see go away, but no one wants them to bankrupt the country either. The Fair Tax solves this problem since it increases the pool of people paying taxes.

There is one other benefit to the Fair Tax so that basics needs are met by all. All families will receive a prebate each month based on the number of people in your house hold for the amount of tax for the basic necessities of the household regardless of income. Anyone who can't afford more than the basic necessities will in essence pay no taxes unless they consume above and beyond your basic needs. Sorry Christmas presents don't count as basic needs, but with more spending power created from not paying taxes on your needs, Christmas presents might not be so difficult to swing each year.

Oh and there's a bonus, it eliminates the need for IRS (not the need to keep collecting on back owed taxes). But April 15 will no longer be the dreaded tax day, it will be just another day. And before you worry about all those government employees out of work, think of all the jobs that are now shipped overseas to countries considered more of a tax haven than the U.S. is now. With no income and payroll taxes, companies will be bring operations back here and/or move operations over here. So there will be plenty of jobs for them to get, as well as for all the other people who are unemployed.

While free market competiton takes care of the price of goods, one other thing I should mention is that only new goods are taxed. If you buy a used home or a used car, no taxes. If you buy used clothes, furniture, or anything else not new, no federal sales tax. You may still be subject to state taxes, but who cares if you understand this concept, you can make decisions based on this knowledge of when and how much you'll be taxed.

Again for more detailed information, check out http://www.fairtax.org/. It's a valuable source of information. There is also a link on there that tells you which of your Senators and Representatives support it or not. http://www.fairtax.org/cgi-bin/scorecard.cgi
Once you make up your mind that it's a good thing for our country, write your Senators and Representatives and let them know your thoughts on it even if they support it, but especially if they don't. The more voices they hear on this subject, the more they are likely to take a closer look at it. This isn't a partisan solution in my opinion, it's a win win solution for everyone, except for purist who are opposed to all taxation. It's better than a flat tax as it taxes consumption. So all those rich people buying cars and mansions and clothes and whatever else they buy will now be taxed on their consumption, not their earnings or capital gains as much of it sits in. You basically get to choose when you want to pay taxes or not based on the consumption decisions you make.

Happy Thanksgiving!!

2008-11-26T20:09:00.002-06:00

Here's wishing everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and safe travels!

Auto Industry Ignorance or Arrogance?

2008-11-19T19:50:00.005-06:00

If you haven't heard the news by now, the big wigs all rode private jets to ask congress for bailout money. Because first class is beyond them? I realize their time is valuable, but airports provide sufficient resources for them to work while waiting for their flights.

It seems to be in poor taste to fly in private planes to ask for the money of people who very rarely if ever fly private. Click here to see the report by ABC News.

If these CEOs are running the companies into the ground, we can see why, with refusal to change their executive travel policies. If they can't make cuts to their own perks before asking for tax payer dollars then they shouldn't be running the companies. If they are unwilling to change their policies dealing with unions, then they shouldn't be running the companies.

Government needs to stay out of the auto industry. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Shut your mouth Michael Moore, you sound ignorant. Sorry he's on Larry king talking as if he knows something about the auto industry and the economy. But of course he didn't mention anything about the unions making concessions or the companies refusing to deal with unions any longer.

Back to I've said it before and I'll say it again. Let poorly operating companies fail. They will either figure out what to do to survive or fail. You can't throw good money after bad and expect to see good results. Sure times will be tough for some people for awhile, but they'll find new jobs either in their industry or somewhere else. Some of them will acquire new skills to get new jobs. When left to their own devices, people usually figure things out for themselves. Even if that means getting temporary help from their families, friends, church, and even government assistance available to them.

If you weren't furious before, you should be furious now. Write and call your Senators and Representatives. They may not listen, but you should always tell them you're view, take note of their vote and hold them accountable when they are up for reelection. Don't let them get away with this. It's our fault if we don't hold them accountable.

Bipartisanship: Fact or Myth?

2008-11-16T13:53:00.008-06:00

This whole election was filled with politicians on both sides of the isle (except Ron Paul I think and I'm sure a few others) talking about the importance of bipartisanship to work through the issues.

These statements came from a bunch of pompous, power hungry politicians on an ego trip. What I think they really mean by bipartisanship is, "it's great as long as your side compromises their morals, values, and beliefs to defect to my side, regardless of thoughtful logic, or what your constituency wants." Some politicians are willing to defect, while some are willing to discuss compromise and are somehow fooled into selling the morals, values, and beliefs of their constituency for "the better good of America." But in reality they are doing it to somehow increase their power or buy undecided votes depending on the race, since they can bank on the majority of their base not paying attention to their actions, thus voting for the name or party they know come election time.

True bipartisanship would be finding the common ground on an issue such as improved education in this country (or am I naive to think that everyone wants that?), and then discussing the various possibilities and researching how those various options work around the world and perhaps in our own country. It would require everyone involved to be open minded to the various solutions and results of research and remain free of non-objective influence by special-interest groups, lobbyists, or their best friend for that matter.

Something tells me this is an impossible ideal since the objective of our government and those running it has become to gain power, influence, and size at all cost by convincing the people that they can't take care of certain things on their own without the help of the government.

Or in reality is the system of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" actually bipartisanship at it's greatest? You know where you talk a bunch of people on the other side to vote your way for a particular issue and promise to pay them back when they need a favor later.

I don't think so, but perhaps you do, and the beauty of living in a free country is the right to have your own opinion and be able to express it. We have the power when it comes to electing our various politicians. Research their beliefs and actions. Make sure you don't give up our valuable liberties in exchange for the government taking care of all your needs. Be careful what you wish for.

In conclusion, as things are, I vote Myth. What's your opinion?

More Evidence Supporting School Choice

2008-11-11T08:25:00.003-06:00

Since I haven't seen this video talked about on most of the blogs I've come across, for those of you that haven't seen this video clip of a teacher in our country, Ashville, North Carolina, spreading her political opinion to her students, take the time to watch it and be appalled at the hypocrisy of her actions in the classroom to her followup statements. I don't have a problem if current events are discussed objectively in the classroom, but that was not an objective discussion. Nor were her reactions to the students who said they supported McCain.

I know that many of you believe that education is a right not a privilege. In my opinion education is important to the future of our country and its economy and growth regardless of it being a right or a privilege. If it's a right as many people agree on, should it not be your right to choose where you send your child to school with the tax dollars you are already paying? The money should follow the child not the the government school district you live in.

If public education is so great, why are the Obamas are shopping private schools for their girls? Presumably your tax dollars will be paying for their private school education even if indirectly through the salary of the president. I don't know if they have a separated stipend for education for the children or not. Irregardless, public school is apparently beyond their girls. I don't blame them, I'd be shopping private schools too, but every parent should have the opportunity since they are already paying taxes in the form of property taxes through rent or ownership.

It is in the best interest of this country if our children receive quality education at the price we are already paying. So what if some government schools are forced to close down. Free market competition is what has made our country great and prosperous. Education is proof of that, as we are behind much of the world in education. Throwing money after the problem is not the solution. Returning to free market competition is.

Everyone wants to fix health care and poverty in this country. Have any of our politicians and the general public considered the likelihood that education is the solution to health care and poverty? If kids come out of high school with the skills they need to either go to college or get a job beyond a cashier at Walmart or a non-managerial job at McDonald's, they can get better jobs that might offer health insurance, pay part of it, or at least pay more so they can afford to purchase it themselves. Just a thought for those of you that haven't considered this before.

Quotes by James Madison

2008-11-07T15:11:00.003-06:00

-"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

-"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes."

-"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

-"A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance...."

-"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree. "

-"Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty ought to have it ever before his eyes that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it."

-"How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? "

-"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."

-"I own myself the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic — it is also a truth, that if industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out."

-"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example ... of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness."

-"That the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome."

-"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

Socialized Healthcare

2008-11-03T18:20:00.003-06:00

I wonder how many of you out there really think that national health care is the answer to our health care needs. My follow up question to those of you that think it's a fabulous idea is "have you been to the emergency room lately for stitches, whiplash, sprained ankle or anything of the likes?" Depending on the area you live in, you probably had to wait a long time just to go back to see a doctor. And then once you got back there you probably had to wait some more. The reason being, the ER is filled with people that should be going to a doctor, but the reason they go to the ER is because;

1. The ER cannot turn them away by law
2. Many of them have no intentions of paying their bill hence why they go to the ER rather than a doctor. Because a doctor can ask for payment up front and refuse to see a patient if they haven't paid.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a socialized as you want your medicine to get. And I question the logic in allowing people to get away with not paying their ER bills because they don't care about their credit or they give a false social security number. I question the logic in telling ERs that they must treat everyone that comes into the ER regardless. They ought to be able to tell people with colds to go see their doctor along with other ailments.

But I'm sure those of you for socialized medicine think that doctors should have to treat everyone that comes to them regardless of their ability to pay. Let me tell you what happens under this system. More and more people refuse to pay which means more and more accounts go to collections, many of which are deemed noncollectable, and doctors no longer find it worth their while to stay in business. So they retire earlier, find other lines of work and advise kids not to bother going to medical school because the risks now outweigh the reward. So there are fewer and fewer professionals to treat more and more patients. But now these professionals are also employees of the government. And as the government realizes there are fewer professionals to meet the demand of the health care needs and wants, they start rationing health care.

So that elective radical mastectomy you want to prevent breast cancer because it runs rampant in your family will have to wait until it becomes cancer. Anything now considered elective, will no longer be an option until it threatens your life. So you will have to learn to live with the pain, discomfort, and even embarrassment your condition causes you. And if it does turn life threatening and you are over the age of 55, good luck on getting moved up on the priority list. The reasoning; you've lived a decent long life and are close to retirement so it's better for the government if you die before retirement so they don't have to take care of you after you stop work. They need the younger viable workers with 20-30 years of work left in them to keep working to pay taxes, so they'll take priority over an older person.

But this is what you all want. Because you naively think it's free. Nothing is free. it's only free to the person that refuses to pay taxes. But then again if you don't work to pay into their tax system, I'm sure you'll be moved down on the priority list for care as well. Because what good are you if you refuse to work so the government can take all your money to give you "free" nationalized health care?

Can't We All Just Get Along???

2008-10-21T17:09:00.004-05:00

I've been wondering for quite awhile now, why political issues are so divisive. Do they have to be? I mean candidates seem to focus most of their time and effort towards pointing out what they will do and how disastrous the other person's plan is. Which may or may not be true but in the end it seems that only the group of people who's candidate got elected feel like they get anything out of it.

Why can't we be more diplomatic with each other in our own country? Which is to say why can't we look for common ground rather than focus on where we disagree? Surely we can find some common ground on most if not all issues. Which is what a Lola presidency will work for. It's not about "reaching across the aisle," it's about adjusting perspective and creativity in approaching each and every issue.

Issue One: Global Warming
We get so caught up in which group is right or wrong about whether or not global warming or temperature cycles, is man made. When in reality at the heart of the global warming issue is the environment and being responsible with it. We all can agree that we'd like to breath clean air, and that it's our responsibility to take care of our planet. That said it isn't the responsibility of the U.S. to take care of the entire planet, but we should vigilant to help educate other countries and assist them within reason to help them become environmentally responsible members of this planet. I think we can also agree that using force on other countries for this issue is also unreasonable.

Issue Two: The War
I keep hearing arguments about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. The past is the past, we can't change that now. We can argue now about whether or not to pull the troops out immediately or to let them finish their job. But that will just get us mad at each other because we are so hell-bent on being right. In reality I'll bet most of us agree regardless of political leanings that Iraq should be taking on more and more financial responsibility for themselves, for paying the forces we've helped train, for rebuilding their country, and any other expenses they have that we have been or still are paying for. I think we have a vested interest in seeing them be fiscally responsible for themselves and maintaining that in the future so leaving them out to dry isn't in theirs or our best interest either. But they can take on more financial responsibility now and should. I think we can agree on that point.

Issue Three: Oil
We can argue about drilling or not but I think there are 2 points here we can come to an agreement on if we all approach the subject with an open mind. We need to work towards energy independence and stop sending loads of money to the middle east for oil when we could be investing that money into our own economy. 2nd, It's silly that other countries are drilling a mere 60 or 90 miles off of our coast while we just stand there and let them suck what should be our resources out of the ground without any kind of reimbursement for it. From these to points we can start to find solutions that are acceptable to most people again if we will be open minded.

I would say there's a 3rd issue we can agree on, and that is that we don't want to end up paying $5 a gallon or more for gas, but I don't know if that's true or not. Pardon my cynicism.

Issue Four: The Economy
This is such a large topic affected by so many other issues that in order to come to any kind of agreement, it will require everyone to make an effort to read an economics book or two. Take an economics class if you want. My mom said she learned the most and had a better understanding of the economy after her MBA Economics class. She says she had a brilliant teacher who not only cleared things up, but taught her how to think critically about the economy rather than just take the word of every joe schmoe out there touting their agenda. So the agreement we can come to, is that unless we all bother to educate ourselves or get a better understanding about the economy, we will never know how to make our own personal economic situation better. There's no shame in asking questions of people you know that do have a good grasp on economics.

I could keep going but it's time for me to go to the Dog park and campaign. The point is we might ought to change our perspective about how we approach politically charged issues, to work together to find where we agree rather than try and "convert" people to our side. Because if you're so close minded that you think your side is perfect, then how are we ever going to accomplish anything? And if your side really is perfect, how have you not been able to articulate your beliefs in terms that convince everyone you meet to come over to your side?

Meet the First Member of My Cabinet

2008-10-14T18:40:00.004-05:00

Meet Zoe E Katz. Kitty extraordinaire. She is going to head up the Department of Veterans Affairs. As Secretary, her main order of business will be to build up a pet therapy programs at all VA Hospitals and all other facilities providing veterans services.

We are both passionate about the healing powers animals bring to the injured, disabled, and distressed whether through participation in physical therapy or just bringing a kiss and companionship.

Zoe is just the cat to put this plan into action and spread it nation wide and world wide to our various military hospitals around the world. She's a no-nonsense kind of gal and won't let bureaucracy get in the way of getting the job done.

I'm very excited about this choice and the work she will accomplish for the heroes fighting and who have fought for this country's freedom.

Thanks For Saying it John Stossel

2008-10-12T14:50:00.003-05:00

This isn't the first time I've heard this. Neal Boortz often says it. But maybe not everyone should vote. Here's a link to the video segment of the story John Stossel did on 20/20.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5985719&page=1 Since more people probably watch John Stossel than listen to Neal Boortz, I'm glad he pointed out the problem with anyone and everyone voting.

In summary it points out the fact that many average people of all ages when randomly asked know little to nothing about our government or politics. And they don't bother to educate themselves before picking a candidate. While Neal Boortz believes certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote (i.e. people receiving welfare, and I'm inclined to agree with that), John Stossel merely points out the fact that maybe it's your civic duty not to vote if you don't bother to read up on the issues and the stand each candidate takes on them and the implications of their position.

No one's asking you to be able to name all 100 senators or all 435 Representative, but you should at least know who your senators are (Mine are John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson) and who your representative is (mine is John Carter, the only person that actually bothered to represent me on the bail out bill). Maybe you also ought to bother to learn who's 3rd in line for the presidency. Maybe you ought to have a general understanding of the Constitution. At least look at it once it awhile. Know how to find it so when you hear someone make a claim of constitutionality or unconstitutionality on a particular subject, you can look it up and learn for yourself.

There are many more things I think you ought to have a basic understanding of, like personal responsibility, before voting. But I'm just glad there are people talking about the civic duty NOT to vote.

Food For Thought

2008-10-10T13:26:00.004-05:00

Someone sent the following story to me in an email. So you may
have seen it already or maybe not. I don't know if it's a true
story or not, but even in fiction there can be a lesson learned.
It's a metaphor for where they country is headed if we don't do
something about it now.

A chemistry professor in a large college  had some  exchange students in the class.
One day while the class was  in the lab the Professor noticed one young man
(exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his  back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had
a bullet lodged in his back. He had  been shot while fighting communists in his
native country  who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install
a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.
He asked, 'Do you know how to  catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch  line. The young man
said this was no joke. 'You catch wild  pigs by finding a suitable place in the
woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come  everyday
to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming  every day, you put a fence down
one side of the place where they are used to coming.

When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn  again and you put up
another side of the fence. They get  used to that and start to eat again. You
continue until you  have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last
side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come  through the gate to
eat, you slam the gate on them and catch  the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run  around and around inside
the fence, but they are caught.  Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They
are so used  to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods  for
themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what  he sees happening to
America . The government keeps pushing  us toward socialism and keeps spreading
the free corn out in  the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit
for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops
(CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs,  etc.. While we  continually lose our freedoms --
just a  little at a time.

Why Aren't We Furious?

2008-10-09T18:59:00.003-05:00

When did we as a nation decide it was ok to let our government hijack us and take over? Both candidates had the opportunity to end this campaign by coming out against this bail-out. No one expected Obama to, but McCain, he could have come out against this ridiculous bill and been outspoken against encouraging irresponsibility in this country on a corporate level and on and personal level. This campaign would be over if he had done that. But he didn't. He was too chicken and decided to go with the flow on this one and once again "reach across the aisle." If I hear anymore about "reaching across the isle," I'm going to hack a hair ball. That's not to say they don't need to work together but they aren't supposed to rob us and then try and convince us why it's necessary to take money from us and redistribute it to the irresponsible. On top of that after they pull that off against our will, they keep giving them more money after the fact.

The best thing McCain can say now is that he will stabilize the market by buying back bad mortgages and renegotiating them at fair market value. Well what about the good mortgages that potentially are no longer at "fair market value?" How is that fair to the rest of us. How do I benefit from paying for their "bad mortgages" to be renegotiated while the government (aka you and me) picks up the difference? Why don't you come up with something real that will help the average American? Like the fair tax? You know all about it. That's the most "bipartisan" solution out there and yet you who "reaches across the aisle" can't even publicly suggest this as your tax solution to help the American people.

And yet we joe citizen sit back and do nothing like our hands our tied. Is this what you want America? Do you want the government to take over our banks? Next comes the auto industry, then slowly everything else and before you know it, we are all government employees paying 60%-70% or more in taxes just to support their inefficiency. We better get pissed off. We better not let them take our power away from us. One of the best suggestions I've heard is to vote the incumbent out regardless of party affiliation. Not a bad idea unless the incumbent really has voted consistently in such a way to reduce the size of government and protect the tax payers.

I'd like to suggest starting by voting for me and Riley. If anyone tries to bring up such ridiculous legislation, Riley will show her teeth. If they vote for it she will attack until they change their vote and learn their lesson for the future.

Don't get complacent. You no longer have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Because I'm not evil. I'm tough and firm, and I really will fight for you the tax payer.