Everyone else does it...By that I mean reruns and time off so here goes reruns for me while I take time for some minor medical procedures. Back with new posts in a week or so. These are the most-viewed posts of the past year:
Get Money Out
Candidates for office should be prohibited from accepting contributions from anyone who is not eligible to vote for the office that candidate is seeking. If only registered voters could contribute to political campaigns corporations, unions, lobbying organizations, and all other special interests would no longer have a political voice. Additionally if the prohibition on big money was in the form of candidate acceptance rather than on the side of the donator, the "free speech" issue is avoided. Finally, the maximum amount a candidate should be allowed to accept is the sum of three months salary for the office being sought and acceptance limits shall also apply to funds personally provided by the individual seeking office. These limits shall apply to both actual contributions as well as loans to an individual's political campaign.. Additionally, every candidate and staff member of a candidate for federal office should sign a pledge stating that the candidate nor will not accept any position after leaving office that could be used to influence legislation or legislators in any way. The would prohibit working as a lobbyist, legislative consultant, or any other of the various terms used by former congressional members or their staff members. Anyone having received compensation for being in Congress or for working for a congress person shall refrain from any form of influence activity after leaving their positions. Violations of this pledge shall result in the forfeiture of any compensation and benefits that were earned during the congressional position.
One Percent
In her recent book, Rachel Maddow pointed out how in today’s world, wars are fought by only one percent of the population. Now that there is no longer a draft, very few individuals or families are affected by the government decisions to wage war. This problem is further compounded by the growth of private, non-government enterprises that are now part of the game of war. With such a small percentage of the population having to deal with the horrors of war, the government is far more likely to be in a position to get public approval to wage war. While Rachel did not make this point in her book, one cannot help but notice that not only is there a small percentage of citizens involved in waging war there is also a very small number of citizens paying for the costs of war. In fact, there are more Americans that profit from the increased expenditures of a war then those who actually suffer from the need for the increase in tax revenue to pay for the war. Very few of the volunteer military come from families in the upper half of income and wealth. Looking at the unemployment numbers, too many returning veterans who leave the military fail to find employment and therefore fail to benefit from the time and sacrifice they made when they volunteered to serve in the military. Add to that the privatization of the “war machine” and it is easy to see that the inmates have taken over the asylum. Less involvement in was as well as less involvement in the costs of government has resulted in exploitations that benefit very few to the detriment of everyone else.
To Run Or Not To Run, That Is The Question
Is there no living Republican who is free from closet skeletons or has the ability to make a ten minute speech absent of errors of gaffs? Are there republicans that know that Concord New Hampshire and Concord Massachusetts are actually two separate locales in two separate states? While “to err is human” makes sense on one level one would presume that continuing to demonstrate one’s attempt to out err or out human everyone else is not the desired qualifications for a presidential candidate. There must be a republican who might be willing to be nominated for president who can actually demonstrate presidential qualities and characteristics. Looking at past presidents like Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy to name a few, the bar does not seem to be insurmountable. Marital fidelity apparently is not a deterrent to the ability to govern. Absence of truth did not appear to prevent Nixon or Reagan from having foreign policy successes. Surely, somewhere in this vast land we call The United States, there is some individual whose mother told him or her, “eat your peas and you can grow up to be President.” This raises another question. One requirement to be a successful president is the need for good, sound judgment. In light of all of the opinion polls and other polling data, some of those candidates seeking the republican nomination are unable to realize that their individual chance of winning the nomination parallel the proverbial snowball. How can Americans expect someone to read intelligence reports and make subsequent decisions regarding the security of the country or the entire world who appears to be unable to interpret poll results that totally discount a chance of winning the nomination. Some of those seeking the nomination have to know that there is no way they will succeed in their quest. Why do they continue to persist? Will they do the same thing if, by some miracle, they would become President. “Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead” makes for good history but can be very expensive policy in terms of lives and other treasure. Time to cut losses would appear to be a better demonstration of presidential judgment.
Class Warfare
When the President or others talk about changes in the tax code for corporations or wealthy individuals the first words out of the mouths of those on the right are “class warfare”. Well here is a message to the middle class Americans, members of labor unions, teachers, first responders, and especially the elderly, the poor, and children: The war is over and you lost! Class warfare ended some time ago and the winners of this war was wealthy individuals, corporations, and those who could afford to pay legislative lobbyists. Income and ultimately wealth in America is no longer dependent upon individual initiative but upon political clout. Leona Helmsley, after being sentenced for income tax evasion said, “taxes are only for the little people”. Unfortunately, she was right and the “little people” lost the class warfare battle. There was a time when top paid employees earned 40 times the pay of the lowest paid employee. Today, top paid employees earn 400 times the pay of the lowest paid employee. That, in itself, explains the loss of jobs in America. If such a large share of payroll goes to executive compensation there is a smaller share of payroll for everyone else. When times are tight and it is necessary to reduce expenses, executives keep their jobs and their large share of payroll while lesser paid workers are the ones who are fired or laid off. Class warfare, job creators, business uncertainty, are all terms used by the victor in the battle for economic equity. Unfortunately, the losers, the American middle class have bought in to these arguments and the result is middle class defeat. By voting for movements like the Tea Party, middle class Americans not only provided ammunition to their own enemies, but aimed artillery on themselves and then fired the cannons. There is no longer class warfare. THE WAR IS OVER! YOU LOST! IF YOUR AGI IS LESS THAN $200,000 YOU LOST! YOU DON"T EVEN GET THE SPOILS!
The Big Flush
There is no way an anti-woman, ultra-conservative, quasi-theocracy can ever win a national election in American politics. Sometimes it is necessary to let those at the extremes of political philosophies (both left and right, by the way) the opportunity to rant and rave but ultimately go down in defeat. The only way the extreme can possibly win an election is if there is low turnout combined with voter apathy. Some of this is evident in the Republican primary where the only demographic that is consistently pro Romney is voters with incomes in excess of $100,000 per year. Not only is this group of voters unanimously voting for Romney in all of the primaries, but this group, unlike all of the others eligible to vote in Republican primaries is turning out in high numbers. This is not unlike the 2000 Presidential election where George Bush was able to win office (perhaps with assistance from SCOUS)with less than 14% of eligible voters casting ballots for his candidacy. One might suspect that any Republican capable of running a campaign that would not resemble the clown car we have had to put up with for the past few months was also able to realize that there was little chance of defeating Obama, a sitting President. Instead of turning one’s self into political cannon fodder it makes far more political sense to sit back, let the idiots destroy the asylum they call the Republican party, and come 2016 start fresh aiming at the center rather than the extreme right. America is a centered country. Neither the extremes on the political right or extremes on the political left will win a national election. After experiencing the policies of the extremists on the right and listening to the rhetoric of the clowns seeking the Republican nomination it is easy to suspect that the 2012 election will flush out those extremists from either party.
Castration!
Here is a suggestion for an amendment to the abortion bill in Virginia or any other state requiring an ultrasound procedure prior to a woman seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. In the event of an abortion, DNA should be taken from the aborted fetus and matched to the male that sired the fetus. Once matched, the male should be required to pay all costs associated with the procedure as well as be made to undergo castration to prevent future unwanted pregnancies. There is no reason that only women should be held accountable for unwanted pregnancies nor should they have to singly bear the financial burden. Finally, the purpose of castration is to prevent a repeat offense on the part of the male.
Republican Logic
What is behind the thought process of those in charge in the Republican party? One must assume that there are intelligent members of this organization that are really interested in the success of the Republican Party. Should that be the case, can anyone provide insight as to why it seems like the goal of the candidates seeking nomination for President are continually alienating potential voters? Santorum has done his best to turn off people who are determined to send their kids to college in spite of his multiple college degrees. He has spoken against sex for anything but procreation. While claiming to be “blue collar” he has earned ten time an average “blue collar” income. Voicing opposition to those on the government payroll, Santorum’s father was a government employee. Republicans have alienated minorities, women, seniors, and virtually any other bloc of voters other than the extreme right wing of the Tea Party. From all appearances the only goal of any of the candidates is to try to appear more conservative and more Christian than anyone else. If you include all of the drop-out candidates, the view of the Republican party as expressed by the candidates seeking office is even more extreme. Then, include the policies that are at the state level and there is even more extremism. In a few cases, Republican policies are so extreme as to face recalls of legislation and governors who signed extreme legislation into law. In Congress, the Republican leadership claims to be for jobs but fails to produce a single piece of legislation to create jobs. The claim for deficit reduction is met by Republican members of Congress calling for more tax cuts. Their cries for health-care reform is contradicted by their attempts to return the country to no health-care legislation as is their attempts to gut any legislation to prevent a recurrence of the Wall Street/Bank failures. The Republican Party claims to be for less government; smaller government yet legislates intrusion into the bodies of women. How can Republicans hope to win elections by antagonizing women? Note: while posts on this site tend towards the political left preferences of the writer are more centrist. Unfortunately, the right center, formerly held by Republicans like Eisenhower cease to exist. To many on the left, Obama is more of a centrist than a liberal or a progressive and I tend to agree with this assessment. There is no longer a home for those whose political leanings find both extremes have gone to far.
Santorum, Republican Taliban? REVISITED
Are the Republicans the western version of the Taliban? Listening to Santorum, one gets the impression that given the opportunity religious law as he interprets it should be the law of the land. He has spoken against homosexuals, gay marriage, sex for anything other than procreation, contraceptives, is obviously opposed to abortions, believes women should not work and if they do, do not deserve to earn the same as men. He is continually proclaiming his religious faith as an asset voters should consider when choosing a Republican candidate. His diatribes against modern living could have come from a Taliban training manual. His claim to be “blue collar” would be laughable if it was not for being believed by some on the right. Where is there a blue collar job that pays over $900,000.00 a year? There are a large number of blue collar, laid-off workers who would jump at a job that paid a fiftieth of Santorum’s 2010 income. While his grandfather was a coal miner, unless Santorum was mining coal in Washington it is doubtful that has influenced his thinking to a great extent. In the meantime, Santorum is seeking the nomination of a political party that has, on the state level, enacted legislation to require people to carry papers proving their citizenship; provide photo IDs to vote; undergo physically invasive medical procedures if they seek abortions; are attempting to outlaw contraceptives; and make other intrusions into lives of citizens. Santorum has spoken against public schooling and has, in fact, home-schooled his own children (while receiving taxpayer funds to do so). Santorum recently referred to the influence of Satan on America, much in the way the Taliban refer to “the great Satan” as the enemy of their religious beliefs. There has been enough trouble dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. America does not need a home grown version in the role of President. Today, since this was originally posted, according to USA Today, Former senator Rick Santorum defended his comment that President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech about the importance of the separation of religion from government “makes him throw up.” He was further quoted as saying: “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” On a television show he went on to say, “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” It appears the Santorum, inner Taliban is coming to the surface when he tries to justify his religious beliefs have a role in the determination of public policy. That a man holding these views would be considered for nomination as President of the United States is an insult to the American people and a stain on the political party that would consider placing his name as nominee representing that party's views.
Are We Really That Stupid?
Are Americans really as stupid as Republicans seem to think we are? A previous post stated, “A recent survey indicated that over 40% of registered voters did not know how long it took for the earth to rotate around the sun. Even more frightening was the reported findings that almost half or 19% of those registered voters were convinced that the sun rotated around the earth.” It appears from all of the rhetoric coming from the Republicans seeking the party’s presidential nomination this is the level of knowledge these would-be candidates are trying to appeal to. One of the talking heads recently opined that the only people who might buy the Republican rhetoric are either stupid, uneducated, bigoted white men or those voters with so much wealth they can afford to back anyone for president. It is very obvious that republicans are no interested in the votes of educated women, the poor, minorities, immigrants, unemployed, and anyone employed earning under $250,000 per year. The only federal expenditures being promoted by these candidates is money for defense and tax cuts that mostly benefit the very wealthy. The results of recent primaries and caucuses have shown that no one candidate has yet to appeal to at least one-half of those voting. It is also interesting that the turnout for the past contests, whether elections or caucuses, is off by at least a factor of 30%. If they cannot fire up their base, how can any of these candidates expect to win over independents or people from the opposing party. The only appeal that seems to attract any voters is their rhetoric denying Obama a second term, much of which is based upon lies and misinformation. This may appear partisan but the intention of this posting is to draw attention the very real need for a true opposition. Opposition based upon facts and policy differences is good for the country. This type of opposition lends itself to compromise from both sides of the aisle. For too long, the opposition is not to policy but to person and that has resulted in inaction which is not good for the country. The country cannot afford status quo. Dislike of Obama does not create jobs, reduce the deficit, nor produce meaningful foreign policy. The country desperately needs an alternative that is more than “anyone but Obama”. Regretfully that alternative does not seem to be anyone in the Republican party interested in becoming President of the United States in 2012.
Santorum, Republican Taliban?
Are the Republicans the western version of the Taliban? Listening to Santorum, one gets the impression that given the opportunity religious law as he interprets it should be the law of the land. He has spoken against homosexuals, gay marriage, sex for anything other than procreation, contraceptives, is obviously opposed to abortions, believes women should not work and if they do, do not deserve to earn the same as men. He is continually proclaiming his religious faith as an asset voters should consider when choosing a Republican candidate. His diatribes against modern living could have come from a Taliban training manual. His claim to be “blue collar” would be laughable if it was not for being believed by some on the right. Where is there a blue collar job that pays over $900,000.00 a year? There are a large number of blue collar, laid-off workers who would jump at a job that paid a fiftieth of Santorum’s 2010 income. While his grandfather was a coal miner, unless Santorum was mining coal in Washington it is doubtful that has influenced his thinking to a great extent. In the meantime, Santorum is seeking the nomination of a political party that has, on the state level, enacted legislation to require people to carry papers proving their citizenship; provide photo IDs to vote; undergo physically invasive medical procedures if they seek abortions; are attempting to outlaw contraceptives; and make other intrusions into lives of citizens. Santorum has spoken against public schooling and has, in fact, home-schooled his own children (while receiving taxpayer funds to do so). Santorum recently referred to the influence of Satan on America, much in the way the Taliban refer to “the great Satan” as the enemy of their religious beliefs. There has been enough trouble dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. America does not need a home grown version in the role of President. Today, since this was originally posted, according to USA Today, Former senator Rick Santorum defended his comment that President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech about the importance of the separation of religion from government “makes him throw up.” He was further quoted as saying: “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” On a television show he went on to say, “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” It appears the Santorum, inner Taliban is coming to the surface when he tries to justify his religious beliefs have a role in the determination of public policy. That a man holding these views would be considered for nomination as President of the United States is an insult to the American people and a stain on the political party that would consider placing his name as nominee re[resenting that party's views.
RAPE!
Rape is defined as: The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Considering this definition, how can the Commonwealth of Virginia is in process of enacting a law that mandates a transvaginal ultrasound for all women seeking an abortion. According to latest information, women would not necessarily be required to view the results of this procedure, but doctors would be required to perform this procedure regardless of the medical necessity and contrary to the willingness of the woman. The Republican definition of less government intrusion into lives of citizens has morphed into state sanction rape! It is time to put a stop to the GOP hypocrisy of less government. When we have reached a period in time when the government can mandate the insertion of an ultrasound probe into the vagina of a women without her consent it is time to say enough. Requiring a photo ID to vote is one thing, but the probe is really going too far. It appears that since this was first written, the Governor of Virginia has reversed his position on this matter to a small extent. While a transvaginal ultrasound will not be required, the amended legislation will still force doctors to perform unnecessary medical procedure of regular ultrasound as well as have the 24 hour waiting period to inconvenience women seeking abortions and the State investigates a woman’s “moral views” before granting permission for the procedure. Additionally the “personhood” amendment which would determine that life begins at conception is still pending in the Virginia Legislature. One would think that Virginians are more concerned with economic issues than moral issues that have long ago been litigated. By the same token, there will be little surprise if other states controlled by republican governors and legislatures attempt the same anti-abortion tactics as Virginia.
Dear Republican Candidates
Republican politicians need to step up and admit that there is a need for government. After all, government is what provides them with jobs, pays their salaries, gives them healthcare, and funds their retirement. Government pays their staff and office expenses and probably provides a number of benefits that are not listed. They need to quit bad-mouthing government since they are the ones that make the laws and enact the policies that direct the actions of government. Finally, they need to admit that government has a cost and that all citizens should contribute to paying those costs in the form of taxes. When Republican politicians are willing to admit this, the country will be in far better shape than it is in today. Speaking of costs of government and of taxes, Republican politicians need to also admit that government revenues from taxes are at historic lows while government deficits are at all time highs. These politicians also need to acknowledge while it is necessary to cut spending it is also necessary to raise revenues. It would lend credence to their argument about spending cuts if they were willing to cut things that benefited them and their constituents. It is one thing to cut spending for those people...you know, them...in other words, those who are not like us. But where are the cuts that benefited those who contributed to our campaigns? Where are the cuts that would be felt by those who elected us and sent us to our government jobs? Where are the cuts that might impact Republican politicians personally, like salaries or the size of staff, or expenses for offices? Now, back to revenue. Admittedly, revenue comes from taxes and it is an oversimplification, but taxes comes from wages and salaries. With a large number unemployed there will be a smaller amount of wages and consequently less taxes. Republican politicians postulated that cutting taxes and reducing regulations would result in more revenue and higher employment. The past ten years has demonstrated that Republicans were wrong. In spite of tax cuts government revenue did not increase and in spite of deregulation unemployment is too high. Doing everything possible to try to ensure Obama is not elected to a second term has not been successful in either raising revenue or reducing unemployment. So, Republican politicians, why not try something more like ly to work. (Remember, the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions with the expectation of different results.) There are roads that need repair, bridges that need fixing, schools that need work, other government structures that require attention. Hire people to do these things. There are shortages of teachers, police, firemen, and other people whose job it is to help people, prevent crime, save lives, and do other admirable things...hire them. Finally reform the tax code so all income is treated equally with no preference for things like capital gains or inheritances. (If this had taken place in 2000 there would be no deficit today!) Quit badmouthing government. You are hired to be legislators. Legislate rather than postulate. Do the job for which you were hired and for which you get paid!
What the F#$K???
The war in Iraq is over. After nine years of involvement, loss of thousands of lives, countless American wounded, and hundred of thousands of Iraqis killed or wounded, the Iraq war is over. But, where is the celebration? Where are the parades? Where’s the sailor kissing the woman (remember the end of WWII?). The war of questionable reason, the war for WMDs is ended and who is celebrating. Obviously, families of members of the military who are now at home or on their way home will celebrate. Friends and relatives who had people in harms way will celebrate. But it is doubtful that there will be parades done main streets of the USA. Oh, yes, Republicans running for president will celebrate??? The end of the war gives them campaign ammunition because they did not want the war to end. Other Republicans like John McCain did not want the war to end. How can Americans look in any mirror and say that this war, any war should not end as soon as possible? What does this say about us as a people when a part of our population wants to continue at war. We could possibly elect a President who prefers war to peace. Imagine, we could send to Washington members of Congress who prefer war to peace. I realize that every male child, at some time or another, likes to play war games. We are not talking about children, however and we definitely are not talking about games. Has our political system so deteriorated that the best interests of the country, the lives and safety of our military, the expenditure of very limited tax dollars sacrificed for political gain. Are there Republicans, or any Americans for that matter, that are so determined to defeat a sitting President that they would do anything, regardless of the cost, regardless of possible loss of life in order to achieve their goal. More importantly, do we want a President who wants to continue a war? What military commander wants his troops to remain in harms way? How can anyone looking to become the Commander-in-Chief want to continue to remain at war. We are living in strange times, but please, no sane person wants war and no sane person would object to ending a war. Think about this when you enter the voting booth next November. A President takes an oath to defend and protect not to continue war.
23 Things to make this a better country
TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! is the rallying cry from both the Right and the Left, but fails to define from whom. The need is to take back the country from corporations and special interests. This is no longer an agrarian economy and there is no reason for all of the special agricultural benefits, subsidies, exemptions and exclusions. Big Pharma needs to be curbed as does the oil, gas, and coal lobbies. Finally, the voices of citizens needs to drown out the voices of lobbyists. We need to take back out country, but we need to take it back from those forces that got the country in today’s mess. 23 Things to make this a better country: 1.Redefine what constitutes a domestic corporation. Rather than looking at where a company was incorporated, look at where it originated. If a company created an off-shore corporation to escape taxes, prevent that company from doing business in the United States unless U.S. taxes are paid. Is the company listed on a U.S. stock exchange? If so, regardless of where incorporated, it is a U.S. corporation and liable for corporate income tax. Does a significant amount of business come from the United States? If so, it is considered a U.S. corporation and liable for U.S. corporate taxes. 2.Treat corporations like individuals when it comes to income earned abroad. A U.S. citizen working abroad is still required to file and pay U.S. income tax. A certain portion of income is excluded for “housing” and tax credits are given for foreign taxes but the U.S. citizen working abroad is still liable for any income tax on income that exceeds the housing deduction and foreign tax credits. 3.Require corporate financial statements and income tax returns be the same. Income reported for earning purposes should be identical to income reported for tax purposes. There should not be a set of books for the government that differs from the set of books for the stockholders. 4.Prohibit corporations from deducting as business expenses any expenditures for purposes of influencing legislation. This would include any fees paid to registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations, and fees paid to “legislative consultants”, and any expenditures for advertisements or position statements on any electoral or legislative issue. 5.Prohibit corporations from deducting as business expense any expenses involved in closing a domestic facility when the closure will result in moving jobs out of the country. Further prevent a company from deducting any and all domestic expenses including to and from travel for any work formerly done domestically (within the past 5 years) but now being done off-shore. 6.Forbid any tax deduction for any payment, regardless of form, to a single individual in excess of $1,000,000. At the same time, the IRS should consider any payment in exchange for work to be wages regardless of form. No individual should be able to receive compensation in the form of stock options or in any other form that is not also classified as wages. Any dividends or proceeds from the sale of stock acquired as a form of compensation should also be considered and taxed as wages rather than capital gains. This would apply not only to stock received in lieu of a cash salary but also should apply to stock acquired as a result of stock options granted an employee. 7.Eliminate all tax deductions for personal and corporate payments for event tickets and private boxes for any entertainment/sporting venues. “Customer entertainment” should not be considered to be an allowable business expense and should also no longer be deductible. This is especially the case where entertainment of elected officials is concerned. No organization should be allowed to deduct any expenses for the entertainment or benefit of any and all elected officials. Expenses for so-called “fund-raising” should also be disallowed as tax-deductible business expenses. 8.Restrict any individual running for federal office from accepting a campaign contribution from any individual not registered and eligible to vote for the office in question. This will also restrict any individual running for federal office from accepting a campaign contribution from any organization that is not an individual, registered voter. Additionally no individual running for federal office may accept a campaign contribution that exceeds the sum of three months salary for the position in question. This “three-month” limit also would apply to contributions and/or loans made to a political campaign by the candidate him or her self. 9.Eliminate any individual deductions from income in excess of $1,000,000. The only exception would be for exceptionally large medical expenses or casualty losses (excessive defined as exceeding 40% of gross income). 10.Add additional marginal tax brackets at the $500,000, $1,000,000, 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 level. 11.Tax all income the same regardless of form. There is no evidence that a lower tax rate for so-called “capital gains” or dividends provides any economic benefit deserving of special tax treatment. Income is income! 12.Eliminate the cap on the company side of FICA and raise the individual side of income liable for FICA to $1,000,000. Business (including self-employed) should be liable for FICA on the entire amount of income (including stock, stock options, dividends, or any other remuneration given employees). 13.“Obama Care” needs to change into “Medicare for All”. Private insurance can offer supplements or advantage programs as long as the insurance companies are not subsidized by government payments. If insurance companies can provide equal or better benefits for the same premium as the government’s cost for Medicare coverage they should be allowed to market this as an option. 14.There is a need for an “Ask your Doctor” tax. Without question, advertising for drugs and medical devices increase both the demand for medical services as well as the costs for medical care. A 10% tax on all “Ask your Doctor” advertising (both production costs as well as media costs) could be used to offset some of the Medicaid expenses needed to provide care for the very low income population. 15.Drug companies and medical device providers should be forced to pledge that the prices they charge any government subsidized or reimbursed program are the lowest prices that firm charges anyone. No company doing business in the United States should be able to charge American citizens who have medical expenses reimbursed by government programs a higher price than paid by citizens of another country. Canadian drug prices should not be lower than drug prices charged Medicare/Medicaid recipients. 16.Members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) should be prohibited from working as lobbyists when their Congressional service ends. They should sign an oath that they will not work in any capacity to influence any legislation in behalf of any constituent or contributor to a prior campaign. 17.Employees of Congressional members(Senators and Representatives office staff) should be prohibited from working as lobbyists when their congressional employment ends. They, too, should sign an oath that they will not work in any capacity to influence any legislation once their Congressional employment ends. 18.Members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) shall no longer have their own medical and retirement programs but should participate in Medicare while service in office and should contribute to and be eligible for Social Security when they retire. The only “government” retirement should be a 104K program where they make matching contributions and are eligible to receive funds from the program once they have reached retirement age like any other Social Security recipient. 19.Members of Congress must affirm that they personally have read and understood any legislation for which they have voted. They should not be permitted to vote on any legislation if they have not read it in its entirety. 20.No member of Congress may directly or indirectly accept any government remuneration other than their actual salaries during their term of office nor for a period of 5 years following their term of office. This would include benefits such as farm subsidies, contractual awards, payments as consultants or any other remuneration other than retirement pensions. 21.Members of Congress should be considered “insiders” and subject to the same rules, regulations, and laws as employees of investment firms and subject to prosecution if they personally financially benefit from knowledge available to them because of their political position. 22.Congressional salaries and office expenses as well as salaries for congressional staff should be tied to tax receipts, government expenditures, and GDP. When government action increases tax receipts, lowers government spending and there is an increase in GDP, more funds can be made available for Congress. When the reverse occurs, less funds should be made available for congress. 23.For any home with a federally insured or federally guaranteed mortgage, the amount of mortgage may never exceed the original purchase price of the home. The only exception would be where re-modeling or other property improvements act to increase the original purchase price. Along the same line, a tax appraisal may never exceed the purchase price of the property excepting where improvements are added to the original purchase price.
Here Comes The ???
With the court decision in California overturning Proposition 8 which opposed gay marriage, the conservative talk machine is revving up their propaganda motors and beginning to strike out against “liberal, activist” judges. First of all, there are basic rights granted by the Constitution and Constitutional Amendments that are not nor should not be subject to a popular vote. Personal freedom and the right to the pursuit of happiness should never be left to the will of the people. Would it make any sense to have a referendum on whether on not everyone attended church on Sunday morning? The idea that a popular vote could determine who may or may not enter into a marriage is not an issue that should be subject to the whims of a popular vote. The real issue should be how, if in any way, those opposed to the idea of a marriage between a same sex couple are personally affected. It was to be expected that Newt would voice opposition but the question Newt needs to answer is how is he affected by to people of the same sex, living in California, negatively affecting his life. How is he or his most recent marriage, for that matter, adversely affected or in any way threatened by the marriage of two people he doesn't even know. After all, he is not required to attend a gay wedding nor is he required to purchase a wedding present for the couple. One cannot imagine how two people in California entering into a marriage agreement might influence Newt and Callista (or even the 4th Mrs. Gingrich) now or in the future. Should anyone choose to reply to this post with a comment, please show how you personally are harmed by two totally unrelated individuals marrying, regardless of their sex. If you opine that this might weaken you own marriage I would definitely reply that you have far greater problems in your existing relationship than can be affected by preventing a marriage of others whether gay or straight.
Where’s The Problem?
Whether it is the clamor to drug test people who receive unemployment benefits, eliminate public employee unions, or require voters to have certain types of photo ID, the Republicans in state legislatures around the country and in Tennessee seem to be obsessed with finding solutions where there never have been problems. The question, why now, should be the first thought that comes to mind when the subject of drug tests, union stripping, or voter photo ID is raised. None of these issues were considered problems before the 2008 elections. Interestingly, none of these issues seem to be pursued by Democrats. So, what is the answer to the question, why now; or the second question, why just a republican/tea party problem? What is the reason to continually search for solutions when there are no problems? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” has been a common sense approach chosen by most sensible people. So again, why now? There are plenty of problems that do need fixing. The lack of jobs is one and if that problem is fixed, the numbers of unemployed will decrease along with the numbers of people who might NEED drug testing. Preventing more layoffs of existing employees is also a more pressing problem. Fix this and you might not need the union stripping legislation. The republican/Tea Party continually claim to be for less government intrusion but they support drug testing. What can be more intrusive that asking someone to pee in a cup? Before going any further one should look at just who is behind all of this legislation. It is difficult to imagine that all of a sudden, an multiple states, problems such as these that had never existed before suddenly appear. Could it be a coincidence that Koch PAC, Republican Governors Association (a benefactor of Koch PAC) and American Action Network are behind all three “solutions”? One must wonder why. One has to ask how all or some of these legislative actions might benefit the organizations that are putting up the cash to push the passage of these bills. People like the Koch brothers do not donate for the love of giving. They are very shrewd and are known to spend only when there is a favorable return. There is another saying, “pigs get fat but hogs get slaughtered”. The top 2% exemplified by the Koch brothers and the Waltons, have moved from pig to hog. It is time for change. Dollars do not vote but boots on the street do. Let the special interests outspend as long as we out vote.
Santorum For President?
If we are ready to return to the 1920s we might consider voting for Rick Santorum. Here is a person seeking to become the President of The United States that would, if elected, attempt to set back women’s rights, the rights of gays and lesbians, overturn gays in the military, and prevent contraception. This man, who was unable to get re-elected in his own state, claims to be the conservative answer to the Republican party. That he is even a candidate for president shows how weak the republican party is today. This is a party of NO. Their entire platform is based upon undoing progress made over the past years. Conservative republicans want to return to policies of the Bush era and before the Bush era that take away rights of many Americans, fail to pay the costs of government, provide tax favors to the wealthiest among us, and reduce the safety nets of those most in need of government assistance. He obviously is against one of Americas fundamental services, public education, having home-schooled each of his seven children. How can he, as president, preside over a policy of public education when he has not experienced public education of his own children. It is unfortunate that none of the republican candidates for president have offered up positive reasons to elect them to office. Since the race for the republican nomination began, it was a circus like atmosphere with many of the hopeful candidates acting more adept at providing fodder for late-night comedians than demonstrating presidential abilities or skills. If the republican party is ever going to be important in the governing of America, far better, far more qualified, more competent candidates than Rick Santorum are needed. Most conservative is not what the country needs. Where is the most competent?
Romney’s Jobs Plan
Mitt! You’ve got to be kidding. This idiocy is your jobs plan? There is not a single thing in your “plan” that will add a single job. In fact, your proposal to cut $20 billion dollars in discretionary spending will, in fact, result in the loss of jobs presently held by people working in those jobs that you plan to cut. Here is a link to a summary of your plan: http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Summary.pdf I would appreciate a comment from anyone who can attest to any way anything in this “plan” will result in a single job. As bad as Mitt is in campaigning, particularly when it comes to straying from his prepared (I know, he does not use a teleprompter) stump speech, his “jobs plan” is even more inept. Mitt, people need actual jobs. Jobless people need employers to hire them. There is nothing you will do “on day one” that will result in a single person getting a new job. Mitt! Get real!
Free Market
Much to the chagrin of republicans, the free market was never a license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. While many on the right would like markets to be completely unregulated, past history has shown that greed trumps economic nature. Alan Greenspan finally came around and admitted that there is a need to regulate markets. Whether the 1929 depression or the 2008 recession is proof of the power of greed over market’s self regulatory power, it should be obvious to everyone that there is a need for controls to prevent thievery and other market manipulation. The mortgage crisis, banking failures, insurance and investment crashes were all the result of loosening or eliminating regulations that should have prevented these catastrophes. It is interesting how the voices that continually cried for less government when riding high began to plead for government assistance when the bottom fell out of their ventures. No one really needs government when things are good, but when there is a need for government, the need is for competent government. Republicans’ continual plea for less government were the first to act for help when it was necessary to bail out banks, wall street, and the auto industry. It is past time for those on the right to acknowledge their dependence on the resources of government and stop their damaging rhetoric which totally lacks truth. Quit confusing free speech with free markets.
Where Are The Jobs?
Everyone seeking the 2012 Presidency (including Obama) keep promising more jobs. The real question is where will these jobs come from. While praising the success of GM’s recovery from bankruptcy and the rise to the number 1 auto manufacturer, there is this reality: GM has closed thirteen plants in the US since 2009 but opened fifteen plants in China. While everyone looks at the innovations of Steve Jobs, Steve’s jobs (no pun intended) are being filled by Chinese workers not American workers. There is an effort on the part of American CEOs to continue the exodus of jobs offshore for a number of reasons. The first of these reasons involves anti-union efforts. By reducing available American jobs, unions cannot afford to threaten strikes or other leverage seeing as how there are an estimated four potential hires to replace every union employee. Unions are being forced to accept lower wage and benefit packages to keep jobs in this country. There is another reason for jobs going off-shore and that is CEO/Executive greed. Most business models were based on the relationship of CEO compensation being 40 times that of the lowest employee. However, starting in the 80s, that relationship changed until today, CEO compensation is over 400 times the lowest paid worker. The additional funds to pay the CEO and other executives had to come from somewhere as business was not increasing at anywhere near the rate of CEO compensation. That somewhere was from compensation being paid to other workers. If jobs are shipped off-shore to facilities having far lower labor rates, moneys formerly paid to domestic employees can now be diverted to the bosses. If, and when jobs might return to the US, those newly returned jobs are at lower pay rates with fewer benefits than when they left our shores thus again providing an opportunity for CEOs and bosses to rake in a higher proportion of earnings. So, the answer to the question, where are the jobs can be found in earnings reports of major corporations. Just look at the growth of executive compensation compared to the decline in non-executive compensation over the past 30 years and your question is answered.
Art Imitating Life?
The cliché has been that Republicans can campaign but they cannot govern. Once again they demonstrated that sometimes slogans carry a lot of truth. The Iowa primary for the presidential nomination was run by the Iowa Republican party, not the Iowa state election commission. Following the election, Mitt Romney was declared the winner by 8 votes over Rick Santorum. Weeks later, after a recount, it was learned that the first count excluded the results of one or more precincts. Now, the winner is said to be Rick Santorum by a margin of 34 votes. However, that is a qualified announcement since it includes 99% of the precinct vote counts. If republicans cannot successfully manage a primary election what are the chances of their success in governing? One can look at the way republican government handled Katrina, estimated the costs of the Iraq war, created Medicare D, and many other issues over the Reagan and Bush presidencies and have to agree with the cliché. Just look at the results of supply-side, trickle-down economics as it related to the deficit. What more proof is needed? Competence in governing is not a quality that republicans have demonstrated. If Romney or Gingrich will govern the way they have been campaigning the country cannot afford to allow republicans to demonstrate their incompetency and ineptness in the future.
Stupid???
Are we stupid? Really! Are the voters as stupid as the candidates seem to think we are? Are these candidates unable to read opinion polls? Have they lost their ability to listen to TV commentators? Do they really thing that the 2012 election is going to be about who is the most conservative? Listening to their rhetoric one might come to that conclusion. All they seem to say is “I’m the most conservative”; or, “he’s a moderate”; or, “he’s (gasp) a liberal”. None of the polls indicate that the “people” care about labels. The polls say the people are concerned about jobs. According to the polls, over 60% of the people, from both parties, by the way, feel that raising the rate of the top tax bracket is a good solution to reducing the deficit. Yet, in spite of the polling data, the only thing offered besides the label game is anti-Obama rhetoric. While I am not a political consultant, I am a voter. Believe it or not, I have voted for Republicans in the past (way, way past unfortunately). I want to vote for someone with solutions. I want to vote for someone who understands the US economy is demand dependent. I want to vote for someone who has the courage to raise taxes when necessary. I want to vote for someone who has appreciation for both the strengths and weakness of our country and who is trying to eliminate our weaknesses and not overuse our strengths. I want to vote for someone who realizes that military power is not measures only by the number and caliber of our guns. Now, those may be stupid reasons to select a candidate for president, but they make more sense than looking at a slate made up of label makers.
Expletive or Euphemism (Part II)
The choice between euphemism and expletive was discussed in an earlier post, but since that time a need arises for further exploration. To begin, is there a difference between a curse word and a cuss word? If so, just what makes one different from the other? Is there a source where a list for cuss words is compared to curse words? The next issue to rise up in this discussion thread is actually limited to blasphemy. While cussing or cursing can also be blasphemy, what happens if the user is an atheist? When an atheist, who doesn’t believe in God, says Goddamn, is that blasphemy or cussing? Then there is the issue of the agnostic. Perhaps the agnostic is required to put a question mark after the word God like, God? Damn! In that case, sometimes it could be considered cussing and sometimes not. And, what about the choice of a euphemism such as, gosh darn-it? Does intent matter? After all, if the intent was to accent frustration is what one thinks more or less important than the actual words that are muttered? Another consideration to ponder involves people of the Jewish or Muslim faith. For those followers of the Semitic religions, is Jesus Christ! swearing or being blasphemous? To this group, Jesus is not part of their worship practice so how does the use of that word qualify as cussing? One other point regarding Jesus. The language spoken in the region inhabited by Jesus and spoken at the time he was alive, Aramaic, had unique characteristics. For one thing it was not a written language during the life of Jesus so anything he was reputed to have said could only be oral history without any written corroboration. More importantly, even to this day, when it has since become a written language as well as a spoken language, there is no sound in Aramaic that approximates the English letter J. In other words, in his native language, Jesus could not have been named Jesus nor Joseph named Joseph. There was no J! This startling fact leads to the final question: If Jesus was not named Jesus, can Jesus Christ! be blasphemous; and if so, why?
Where Are The Jobs?
One quarter into the 112th Congress's two-year term, only 14 pieces of legislation originating in the House have become laws (12 bills and two house joint resolutions). Fourteen. Compare that with the House in the 111th, which claimed 254 laws (plus 11 house joint resolutions) over two years. The 110th had 308 (plus 10 house joint resolutions). Even the often-derided do-nothing 109th Congress's House controlled by the GOP passed 316 (with 16 house joint resolutions). If the current House continues with this trend it will have produced a mere 48 laws by the end of the chamber's full term. Here’s a list of what was “accomplished”: 1. H.R. 2, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, Jan. 19 2. H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (amendments include: defunding the EPA, czars, Obamacare and Planned Parenthood.) Feb. 18 3. H.R. 3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, May 4 4. H.CON.RES.34 Ryan Budget Bill (lowering taxing for wealthy, dismantling Medicare), Apr. 11 5. H.R. 1363, One-week budget bill (with Planned Parenthood, EPA and NPR defunding riders), Apr. 7 6. H.R. 910, Energy Tax Prevention Act (a.k.a. Stop EPA bill), Apr. 7 7. H.R. 359, Eliminate public finance, Jan. 26 8. H.R. 217, to Defund Planned Parenthood, Feb. 21 9. H.R. 1076, Defund NPR (this was an emergency vote), Mar. 15. 10. H.R. 1230: Restarting American Offshore Leasing Act, May 5 11. H.J. Res. 37: Disapproving Net neutrality, Apr. 9 12. H.R. 861, Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Termination Act, Mar. 16 13. H.R.1214, Block Money for Constructing School-Based Health Centers, May 4 14. H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act, April 13 15. H.R. 2560, Cut, Cap and Balance Act, July 19 16. H.R. 830, FHA Refinance Program Termination Act, Mar. 10 17. H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act, Mar. 14 18. H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act, Mar. 29 19. H.R. 1213, To repeal mandatory funding provided to States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, May 3 20. H.R. 1217, to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, Apr. 13 21. H.R. 1255, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act, Apr. 1 (This bill had language in it claiming if the Senate didn't pass H.R. 1, then it became law) 22. H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act (gutting CFPB), Jul. 21 Honorable mentions (brought to a vote by the majority only to be voted down by them too): Light bulbs!; clean bill for debt increase; defunding the Libyan conflict. The House majority has voted to defund Planned Parenthood, EPA and NPR multiple times -- in riders, in amendments, in emergency bills -- none to ever become law. They've also voted at least twice to override President Obama's moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. And of course they've voted several times to defund and block the dreaded "Obamacare." So, just where is the legislation to create jobs, increase revenues, or reduce the deficit?
Euphemism or Expletive
There comes a time when there is a need for either an expletive or a euphemism arising from an unexpected event, for instance. Perhaps one form or another is called for to describe something that occurred in the past. In any case, some strong expression is called for and the strength of the expression as well as the choice between expletive or euphemism has to be determined. In many of these times, an instantaneous decisions needs to be made. The particular event demands immediate reaction and there is not the luxury of time to determine whether a expletive or a euphemism more is appropriately befitting of the surroundings. Given the reality that should one, while hanging dry wall, for instance, manage to nail one’s finger to a stud, Oh Shoot! Just won’t work. If you desire to make the point the Michelle Bachman is a fucking idiot (I know, I promised no politics) or Newt Gingrich fucked up his campaign, or why the fuck did Ron Paul write those articles; somehow euphemisms don’t seem to work very well. While my intent is not to emulate Richard Pryor, George Carlin, or Lenny Bruce, it would be interesting to try to determine if the need for expletives in somehow part of our DNA. It appears that the chimps who have learned sign language might use some form of expletives in their daily conversations. I also learned there are actually expletives in sign language. However, I don't know if an signed expletive would have a similar effect as a spoken expletive. There have been studies that the appropriate use of expletives act actually relieve pain. (This means that oh shit would be a better choice than the oh shoot choice previously mentioned.) One other consideration should also be discussed. When the choice is made for a euphemism rather than an expletive, is there any weight given to intent? In law, intent can be the difference between 1st degree and manslaughter but what about language? If you choose the euphemism but are really thinking the expletive do you get a pass? Studies that have shown that expletives can mediate pain also demonstrate that euphemisms do not have the same effect. You probably already know that if you've ever hit your finger with a hammer. This leads me to the following reference: http://www.paxacidus.com/why-fuck-is-the-best-word-pax.php. This says it better than I can. Finally, a story: When my son was around three years old he came to me and said he had a serious problem. When I asked him to tell ma about the problem he said, “my mom won’t allow me to say fuck, what can I say instead?” That was over forty years ago and long before I began contemplating the euphemism of expletive issue. I confess that my answer may not have been socially appropriate but none the less, I told him that when he had the urge or the need to use words like that he should go to his room and close the door. There in the privacy of his room, where he was the “master of his own domain” he could say anything he wished. Apparently that must have worked since he has never again voiced the need to decide between expletive or euphemism. He has mastered the ability to make the most appropriate choice regardless of the situation, circumstance, or surroundings. His choice is based upon whichever feels best.
No comments:
Post a Comment