Since this is my last Blog of 2011 - "Happy New Year" everyone.
Next week will start the Republican primary season and the gloves are already off with the candidates taking shots at each other. I guess this is expected, but as they attack each other I hope none of them will forget the "end game" - defeat Barack Obama.
The beauty of "Blogging" is you can give your opinion, whether anyone agrees with it or not. Like many of my generation we have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan to come along, but sadly that will not happen in this election cycle. So here are my thoughts about this field of Republican candidates in order of their recent polling:
Mitt Romney ("the Suit") - Romney at this point looks like the front runner. He has impressive business experience; I do remember when he turned around the Utah Olympics; he has the executive experience of being a Governor; and he seems "Presidential". But Mitt, show us some "fire in the belly"! And what about your "Obama-Lite" insurance program in Massachusetts? He seems to be a competent manager, but I hate the term "moderate", and will someone mess up this guy's hair just once!
Ron Paul ("the crazy uncle") - OK I'm going to catch hell from my youngest son for this comment. But does anyone believe Ron Paul could win this primary, and if he did, beat the Obama machine?
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the fed, cut the budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us, quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his comments about leaving Israel to fend for themselves; or let Iran develop a nuclear bomb; or 911 could have been an "inside job" by the Israeli Mossad makes me wonder if this guy has thought out his foreign policy issues. Here's my suggestion: Keep Ron Paul on the back burner until after the election and then if the Republicans win, make him Secretary of the Treasury and let him do his thing to get our finances back from the edge of the cliff.
Newt Gingrich ("the bomb thrower") - I'm not sure about Newt. I do remember when he pulled off one of the great feats in political history leading the takeover of the House in the mid 90's after 40+ years of Democratic rule. But then the power went to his head. He was thrown out due to ethics violations and alienated many of his fellow Representatives along the way. His personal life has been a bit of a train wreck but he now claims to be "older and wiser", so I guess he deserves the benefit of the doubt. But on this subject I have one nagging question: Cheating on one wife; OK everyone deserves to be forgiven for one serious indiscretion, but twice?
Newt is attractive because he is a "fighter" and would not take it from the liberal press, and could destroy Obama in debates, especially when Obama doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say. But the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $1.6 million consulting fees, his flip flops on Global Warming, mandated health insurance, and the fact that he is just such a "slick" life-long politician makes me nervous.
Rick Santorum ("the Evangelist") - Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian myself, and I like former Senator Santorum. I agree with him that "restoring the family" in this country is paramount to getting our social climate back on the right track. A classic example is the black community with 70% of children being born out of wedlock (and in many cases without a father in the household). Without some basic cultural changes, they haven't got a chance to improve their situation in our society.
Santorum is a solid "pro life/pro family" candidate and should have much of the evangelical constituency locked up. But this is not an election about social policies. This country is in such serious financial and economic trouble that social principals just can't be a determining factor.
Rick Perry ("the Texan") - I was a Rick Perry fan at the beginning, but he blew it in many of the debates. Not because he wasn't a good debater, he just doesn't seem to be ready to run this country and whether anyone agrees with me or not - giving "illegal" immigrants preferential treatment over out-of-state US citizens for college tuition is something I can never agree with. Governor Perry comes across as a likable politician but just doesn't make it to my short list.
Michelle Bachman ("Sarah wannabe?") - OK that's not fair. She is a bright, impressive woman and will be a future star in the Republican Party, she is just not there yet. She is a former attorney and strict constitutionalist - how about Attorney General in the next Republican administration?
John Huntsman ( "Slick") - He claims to be holding back for the New Hampshire primary and recently said: " Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents"...we'll see John.
Gary Johnson (the "Libertarian") - Former Governor of New Mexico who has just announced that he will run as a Libertarian candidate. If you listen to this guy he makes a lot of sense and it has been surprising that he never rose above being an "obscure Republican", even to the point of not participating (or being invited) to the debates. But if you are a "Libertarian" (and I have those leanings) this guy is rock solid, even more so than Ron Paul in my opinion. Hopefully the Libertarian candidate will not draw enough Republican votes to give Obama a victory.
So there it is; I am as undecided as anyone at this point, but whoever becomes the Republican candidate we all need to remember the "end game" - we cannot endure four more years of Barack Obama, or this country will never be the same. If something is not done about our massive debt and ridiculous social entitlement policies, the USA as we know it may reach the "point of no return".
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
"So long Barney"
He is not "retiring" because he is in his early 70's, he is retiring because due to redistricting he actually has to "run for reelection" with a new group of voters and he knew he would lose.
His problems with new constituents has nothing to do with being gay, or the fact that years ago a male prostitution ring was run out of his DC condo; his personal and political record simply reeks of all the things that are wrong with Washington. He was a major sponsor of the legislation which enacted the Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac loan programs that resulted in creating the sub-prime housing bubble that led to this deep recession; and maybe was even the cause of it. He denies it, but that program put millions of low income people into homes that they simply could not afford; homes that were destined to go into foreclosure.
One of his reasons for leaving congress: "I don't like being in the minority". Like many of our politicians power was all that mattered to Congressman Frank. The fact that this arrogant, corrupt, career politician will be gone is a small step in the right direction.
He may not be purple, but this "Barney" certainly is a dinosaur.
Monday, November 21, 2011
"Super Failure"
Deep down we knew the so-called "Super Committee" would fail. And think about it, what was so "super" about this committee of ideologues who were just shills for their leadership, and for the President. Congress continues to display their complete incompetence and Obama continues to display his complete inability to lead.
So here we are back at the starting line. The failure of this super committee means that by law the $1.2 trillion in cuts will be automatically split between the Defense Department and spread among other governmental agencies except social security, Medicare, veterans programs, and programs for the poor. But these automatic cuts will not start until 2013...isn't that interesting, after the next election. And they will probably never happen.
The super committee was a sham from day one . The Constitution states, among other things, that the Congress shall have the responsibility to lay and collect taxes, spend money, borrow money, and pay debts. It says nothing about a "super committee" and the fact that Congress took this cowardice method to try and work on the debt problem illustrates one thing - a majority of Congressional members did not want to go on record voting for any spending cuts or tax increases before an election year. What a shame that the self-interest of our politicians overrides what is good for the country. I believe this "super committee" was designed from the beginning to fail, since Obama was giving a press conference within hours after their announcement, blaming the failure on the Republicans. And that will be his campaigns mantra: "I could not perform my job because of an ineffective Congress". He sure as hell cannot run for reelection on his record.
Those that read this blog know I am a partisan, but whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent you must feel like I do; this is the most ineffective, incompetent Congress and President in our lifetime. We need to replace the whole lot.
So here we are back at the starting line. The failure of this super committee means that by law the $1.2 trillion in cuts will be automatically split between the Defense Department and spread among other governmental agencies except social security, Medicare, veterans programs, and programs for the poor. But these automatic cuts will not start until 2013...isn't that interesting, after the next election. And they will probably never happen.
The super committee was a sham from day one . The Constitution states, among other things, that the Congress shall have the responsibility to lay and collect taxes, spend money, borrow money, and pay debts. It says nothing about a "super committee" and the fact that Congress took this cowardice method to try and work on the debt problem illustrates one thing - a majority of Congressional members did not want to go on record voting for any spending cuts or tax increases before an election year. What a shame that the self-interest of our politicians overrides what is good for the country. I believe this "super committee" was designed from the beginning to fail, since Obama was giving a press conference within hours after their announcement, blaming the failure on the Republicans. And that will be his campaigns mantra: "I could not perform my job because of an ineffective Congress". He sure as hell cannot run for reelection on his record.
Those that read this blog know I am a partisan, but whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent you must feel like I do; this is the most ineffective, incompetent Congress and President in our lifetime. We need to replace the whole lot.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
"Obama is a Godsend"
Some of you may have heard the interview of the Russian man with one of the Wall Street protesters last week. He had lived under communism/socialism for more than 20 years and is now a US citizen. He decided to go down to the protest and talk to some of the protesters.
He was very polite and asked this young girl what they were protesting against. She said: "Capitalism!" Trying to keep things simple he asked if she would rather live in North Korea (communism/socialism) or South Korea (capitalism). Amazingly she said: "North Korea, socialism rocks". Now obviously this young lady was either "high" or she simply is so uneducated that you could not say she is representative of her other protest compatriots.
Today Laura Ingraham interviewed this Russian guy and he had a chance to further discuss this experience at the Wall Street protest. He said that his first comparison to this young lady could have been East and West Berlin during the cold war. But since the fall of the Berlin wall those people in East Berlin are now starting to see the benefits of, (bad word) "Capitalism", and East Berliners are living prosperous like the rest of Germany. So he used North/South Korea as his example to her. And in the Ingraham interview he made a simple point - North Korea and South Korea are the same country, the same people, and the same resources. The difference is the SYSTEM.
Now here is a guy that has seen both sides and loves America. Laura Ingraham ended the interview by asking how he felt about this country now, with all our economic problems, protests, and in many people's opinion: "America is in decline". His response: "I am very positive about America, recent studies show that 40% of Americans call themselves 'Conservative', and their numbers are increasing, 20% of Americans call themselves 'Liberals' and their numbers are decreasing. For that I thank Obama, he is a godsend".
Editor's note: In 1967 I had the opportunity to visit East Berlin during the cold war. My brother was imprisoned there for; "Aiding in the escape of an East German citizen to the West", a crime he did not commit. It was an experience I will never forget and I wish these protesters could just experience 10 minutes of what I saw traveling from West to East Berlin during that time.
He was very polite and asked this young girl what they were protesting against. She said: "Capitalism!" Trying to keep things simple he asked if she would rather live in North Korea (communism/socialism) or South Korea (capitalism). Amazingly she said: "North Korea, socialism rocks". Now obviously this young lady was either "high" or she simply is so uneducated that you could not say she is representative of her other protest compatriots.
Today Laura Ingraham interviewed this Russian guy and he had a chance to further discuss this experience at the Wall Street protest. He said that his first comparison to this young lady could have been East and West Berlin during the cold war. But since the fall of the Berlin wall those people in East Berlin are now starting to see the benefits of, (bad word) "Capitalism", and East Berliners are living prosperous like the rest of Germany. So he used North/South Korea as his example to her. And in the Ingraham interview he made a simple point - North Korea and South Korea are the same country, the same people, and the same resources. The difference is the SYSTEM.
Now here is a guy that has seen both sides and loves America. Laura Ingraham ended the interview by asking how he felt about this country now, with all our economic problems, protests, and in many people's opinion: "America is in decline". His response: "I am very positive about America, recent studies show that 40% of Americans call themselves 'Conservative', and their numbers are increasing, 20% of Americans call themselves 'Liberals' and their numbers are decreasing. For that I thank Obama, he is a godsend".
Editor's note: In 1967 I had the opportunity to visit East Berlin during the cold war. My brother was imprisoned there for; "Aiding in the escape of an East German citizen to the West", a crime he did not commit. It was an experience I will never forget and I wish these protesters could just experience 10 minutes of what I saw traveling from West to East Berlin during that time.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Teleprompter terror
Terror struck the Obama road tour today when a truck that contained his teleprompter was stolen. With the President unable to speak, in a panic the Secret Service put Vice President Biden on alert. At first the SS tried to activate Biden's teleprompter as a substitute, but were unable to debug the "gaffs" in time.
Luckily the stolen truck was recovered with Obama's teleprompter in tact and the President was able to function again. I trust that the Secret Service checked the software in the recovered teleprompter because he will say whatever is posted on the screen. Let's wait until the President's next speech - if he proposes tax cuts, reducing the size of government, reducing food stamp and welfare budgets, and deregulation of the American business community, it was obviously a Tea Party conspiracy.
Luckily the stolen truck was recovered with Obama's teleprompter in tact and the President was able to function again. I trust that the Secret Service checked the software in the recovered teleprompter because he will say whatever is posted on the screen. Let's wait until the President's next speech - if he proposes tax cuts, reducing the size of government, reducing food stamp and welfare budgets, and deregulation of the American business community, it was obviously a Tea Party conspiracy.
Monday, October 17, 2011
"Occupy this"
Drugs, sex in the streets, disorganized people that can't come up with a coherent message, and unsanitary conditions, Occupy Wall Street has aptly been called the "Flea Party". But thanks to George Soros and his money, trade unions, complicit media, and even encouragement from President Obama and many Democrats, this movement has had more coverage in a month than the Tea Party has had since they became a force in American politics.
This is a classic example of the uphill battle anyone but a liberal movement has in getting their message out. All we read about is the "Occupy" protests, not just here but around the world this weekend. But what are they protesting? I have watched interviews of various protesters without seeing any focused thought.
But one "focused" thought has come from Herman Cain; "This movement is designed to take attention away from the failed policies of the Obama administration". And he is exactly right. When you cannot run on your record, and all your excuses have failed, create an enemy to attack, and hope people will buy it. The enemy - rich people, Wall Street, George Bush, and as one black lady in the 'LA Occupy' protest proudly stated on television today; "We need to collect the rich Jews that control everything and send them out of the country". I wonder how Steven Spielberg and all his Jewish friends in Hollywood feel about that liberal protester's statement?
It is amazing that all this vicious energy is directed against corporate millionaires but not the Hollywood millionaires. Sean Penn recently stated that the Tea Party wants to 'lynch' Obama and Morgan Freeman said "The Tea Party is a racist thing". Yet not one in the main stream media has reported the anti-Semitic, lynch Bush, arrest rich people comments of these so-called protesters.
This strategy by the Democrats is going to fail, Americans are not that stupid. We don't need income redistribution, we need jobs. Most Americans don't want a handout, they want the satisfaction of working with the opportunity to make something of themselves; they do not want a "Cuban" or "Venezuelan" society.
Obama and his handlers are making a huge mistake in trying to divide this country and create a class war. Even with the main stream media on his side his effort to divert attention from the miserable economy will not work. The "pay your fair share" argument won't fly when almost 50% of wage earners pay NO income tax. Even if the taxes on all so-called rich people were doubled it would not make a dent in the deficit.
Ironically, in the last election Obama received more contributions from Wall Street than any President in history. That will not happen this time around. But he had to create a villain and they are it. He is not stupid, he knows exactly what he is doing, but I believe in Americans and his "class strategy" is not going to work.
This is a classic example of the uphill battle anyone but a liberal movement has in getting their message out. All we read about is the "Occupy" protests, not just here but around the world this weekend. But what are they protesting? I have watched interviews of various protesters without seeing any focused thought.
But one "focused" thought has come from Herman Cain; "This movement is designed to take attention away from the failed policies of the Obama administration". And he is exactly right. When you cannot run on your record, and all your excuses have failed, create an enemy to attack, and hope people will buy it. The enemy - rich people, Wall Street, George Bush, and as one black lady in the 'LA Occupy' protest proudly stated on television today; "We need to collect the rich Jews that control everything and send them out of the country". I wonder how Steven Spielberg and all his Jewish friends in Hollywood feel about that liberal protester's statement?
It is amazing that all this vicious energy is directed against corporate millionaires but not the Hollywood millionaires. Sean Penn recently stated that the Tea Party wants to 'lynch' Obama and Morgan Freeman said "The Tea Party is a racist thing". Yet not one in the main stream media has reported the anti-Semitic, lynch Bush, arrest rich people comments of these so-called protesters.
This strategy by the Democrats is going to fail, Americans are not that stupid. We don't need income redistribution, we need jobs. Most Americans don't want a handout, they want the satisfaction of working with the opportunity to make something of themselves; they do not want a "Cuban" or "Venezuelan" society.
Obama and his handlers are making a huge mistake in trying to divide this country and create a class war. Even with the main stream media on his side his effort to divert attention from the miserable economy will not work. The "pay your fair share" argument won't fly when almost 50% of wage earners pay NO income tax. Even if the taxes on all so-called rich people were doubled it would not make a dent in the deficit.
Ironically, in the last election Obama received more contributions from Wall Street than any President in history. That will not happen this time around. But he had to create a villain and they are it. He is not stupid, he knows exactly what he is doing, but I believe in Americans and his "class strategy" is not going to work.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Antisocial Network
Antisocial behavior is defined as: "Deviating sharply from the social norm".
I have always thought of myself as a social person but am beginning to think I belong to the "antisocial network". Oh, I am somewhat shy but not really antisocial. I do feel most comfortable with close friends, but having been president of three different companies during my career I had to learn to play the social game. I have traveled around the world, socializing with customers all day along and then entertaining and attending social events in the evening. I was at the top of my game during my career...then I retired.
I have tried to keep up with this fast moving world but now I seem to be sliding toward the bottom of the social ladder; I might even be considered 'antisocial'. Here's the problem - I don't have a smart phone so I cannot keep up to date with what is going on in the world while waiting for the light to change, and can't even check my email except on the computer in my office. In fact I rarely talk on my cell phone except to see if my wife wants me to pick up groceries on the way home or if my car breaks down. I feel guilty that I have never even had a 'social' telephone conversation while driving my car. And texting...well that's another story.
To make things worse, I don't have an Ipad. So here in the country I sit at my old computer trying to keep up with what is happening in the world while deer and turkeys stare through the window wondering where I got that clunker. With WiFi everywhere I could be on-line 24 hours a day with my Ipad and not miss a thing.
But mostly I feel 'antisocial' because I only have 52 Facebook friends. I like to follow what my family is doing and am so envious of my grandchildren; some of them have 500-1000 Facebook friends. Now that's what I call 'socializing'. Where have I gone wrong?
But I'm getting old so maybe I'll just sit in the background and enjoy watching my children and grandchildren socialize on Facebook with all their friends. Although I only have 10- 20 close friends and another 30 or so good friends, I feel blessed with them.
But I'm not giving up. Watch for me on Twitter...whenever I figure out what the hell that is.
I have always thought of myself as a social person but am beginning to think I belong to the "antisocial network". Oh, I am somewhat shy but not really antisocial. I do feel most comfortable with close friends, but having been president of three different companies during my career I had to learn to play the social game. I have traveled around the world, socializing with customers all day along and then entertaining and attending social events in the evening. I was at the top of my game during my career...then I retired.
I have tried to keep up with this fast moving world but now I seem to be sliding toward the bottom of the social ladder; I might even be considered 'antisocial'. Here's the problem - I don't have a smart phone so I cannot keep up to date with what is going on in the world while waiting for the light to change, and can't even check my email except on the computer in my office. In fact I rarely talk on my cell phone except to see if my wife wants me to pick up groceries on the way home or if my car breaks down. I feel guilty that I have never even had a 'social' telephone conversation while driving my car. And texting...well that's another story.
To make things worse, I don't have an Ipad. So here in the country I sit at my old computer trying to keep up with what is happening in the world while deer and turkeys stare through the window wondering where I got that clunker. With WiFi everywhere I could be on-line 24 hours a day with my Ipad and not miss a thing.
But mostly I feel 'antisocial' because I only have 52 Facebook friends. I like to follow what my family is doing and am so envious of my grandchildren; some of them have 500-1000 Facebook friends. Now that's what I call 'socializing'. Where have I gone wrong?
But I'm getting old so maybe I'll just sit in the background and enjoy watching my children and grandchildren socialize on Facebook with all their friends. Although I only have 10- 20 close friends and another 30 or so good friends, I feel blessed with them.
But I'm not giving up. Watch for me on Twitter...whenever I figure out what the hell that is.
Monday, September 19, 2011
War on all fronts
Class warfare has always been part of the Democratic playbook, better known as the 'populist' movement; protect the working man (unions), subsidize the poor (housing, welfare, food stamps, school lunches, etc.) and during the years of Democratic power, installing programs like the War on Poverty. Obama has taken this war to a new level on all fronts. After single-highhandedly increasing the national debt by more than all previous presidents combined, today he proposed HIS deficit reduction plan which includes $1.5 trillion in tax increases. This from a man who last year said; "The last thing we should do during a recession is raise taxes". Today was a "speech du jour", written by his handlers and posted on his teleprompter.
He tells us the wealthiest need to pay their 'fair share' and if not, children won't get proper health care, firemen, policemen, and teachers will lose their jobs, etc. He also told us that he will veto any bills that do not include these tax increases. These wealthiest people now pay 75% of the income taxes while almost 50% pay no tax, but I guess to Obama this is still not fair enough.
Sadly, rather than leading this country he is in full campaign mode focusing only on getting re-elected. It's not working. Even Democrats are jumping ship. Obama knows this bill will never pass, but with failures everywhere in his administration's polices they are in panic mode and this 'straw man' deficit plan named after Warren Buffett is their strategy to up the ante in the class war. I'm surprised they haven't brought up white men lynching a black man dragging him behind their car as they did with George Bush after the James Byrd incident. But mark my words; the race card is still in their bag of tricks.
But Americans are smart and they are getting involved, and the class warfare strategy is not going to work as well as it did in the past. Even the black community is starting to realize that the 'War on Poverty', welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and the first black President has done NOTHING for them. They want jobs like every other American. The 'enemy' - the so-called rich are the job creators and people are starting to realize that socialism doesn't work and that 40 million on food stamps, 14 million unemployed, unfunded liabilities for federal and state pensions for public employees in the $ trillions - cannot work. As Margaret Thatcher once put it so aptly; "The problem with socialism is that sooner of later you run out of other people's money".
We can only get out of this economic mess by cutting the massive government spending, reducing taxes and regulations, so the job creators of this country can get to work and 'grow' us back to prosperity.
He tells us the wealthiest need to pay their 'fair share' and if not, children won't get proper health care, firemen, policemen, and teachers will lose their jobs, etc. He also told us that he will veto any bills that do not include these tax increases. These wealthiest people now pay 75% of the income taxes while almost 50% pay no tax, but I guess to Obama this is still not fair enough.
Sadly, rather than leading this country he is in full campaign mode focusing only on getting re-elected. It's not working. Even Democrats are jumping ship. Obama knows this bill will never pass, but with failures everywhere in his administration's polices they are in panic mode and this 'straw man' deficit plan named after Warren Buffett is their strategy to up the ante in the class war. I'm surprised they haven't brought up white men lynching a black man dragging him behind their car as they did with George Bush after the James Byrd incident. But mark my words; the race card is still in their bag of tricks.
But Americans are smart and they are getting involved, and the class warfare strategy is not going to work as well as it did in the past. Even the black community is starting to realize that the 'War on Poverty', welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and the first black President has done NOTHING for them. They want jobs like every other American. The 'enemy' - the so-called rich are the job creators and people are starting to realize that socialism doesn't work and that 40 million on food stamps, 14 million unemployed, unfunded liabilities for federal and state pensions for public employees in the $ trillions - cannot work. As Margaret Thatcher once put it so aptly; "The problem with socialism is that sooner of later you run out of other people's money".
We can only get out of this economic mess by cutting the massive government spending, reducing taxes and regulations, so the job creators of this country can get to work and 'grow' us back to prosperity.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
What leader?
I hate to criticize a person on their 50th birthday, but here goes.
Every time I hear President Obama referred to as 'Leader of the Free World' my head almost explodes. I think many of us would agree he is not even leader of the USA. This debt ceiling fiasco was a classic example of his leadership style; stay in the background and let other people make the tough decisions then jump in at the end and try to take credit for the results. After all he voted 'present' 90% of the time in the Illinois Senate. Well the stock markets around the world today made a statement about his leadership of our (and the world's economy); a statement about his performance.
The average American is becoming more and more educated about this debt crisis and Obama's 'golden voice' has lost its impact. This so-called leader has already had 37 fund raising events in just 2 1/2 years in office, and at a time this country has been hurting badly. But he should be able to celebrate his birthday and if you have the money to shell out $34,800 you can attend his party tonight; and if you kick in another $10,000 you can get your picture taken with him. Most of us would agree that you have to be rich to pay $35K to attend a birthday party and it's ironic that these are the same rich people with private jets and yachts that he demonizes in every speech. But these are HIS rich people.
The experts are telling us that Obama has no more arrows in the quiver to shoot at this failing economy - I disagree. Here are some 'arrows' that could ignite this failing economy and get it moving at high speed again:
1/ Repeal Obamacare and replace it with a sane health care bill that provides a safety net for truly poor people.
2/ Rescind all the ridiculous EPA and consumer protection regulations that the Obama administration has instituted. Some experts predict these regulations alone will cost American industry a trillion dollars over the next ten years.
3/ Open up Anwar, the Gulf, and both coasts of the USA for responsible oil drilling.
4/ Eliminate all corporate subsidies and tax loopholes and reduce the corporate tax rate to a permanent 25%.
5/ Freeze ALL government spending including salary raises for all employees including the President and Congress, at 2011 fiscal year levels and DO NOT raise it again until the debt is 18% of GDP or below. This includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
6/ Raise the top tax rate of 36% by 10% making it almost 40%. At the same time raise everyone's tax rate 10% including requiring the 50% of Americans that pay no tax to kick in something. Even if they make $10,000 per year why should they not participate in this country with at least a 1% income tax? After all, they benefit from all the services.
7/ Put a reasonable limit on unemployment insurance and require people on welfare to do some form of work, even if it means picking up trash or mowing lawns in local parks.
8/ Finally, cancel this so-called 'super-committee' and tell elected members of Congress to either do their jobs or resign and go home. And that includes our "leader"
Do you think any of these arrows will be put back in the quiver? Not a chance.
Every time I hear President Obama referred to as 'Leader of the Free World' my head almost explodes. I think many of us would agree he is not even leader of the USA. This debt ceiling fiasco was a classic example of his leadership style; stay in the background and let other people make the tough decisions then jump in at the end and try to take credit for the results. After all he voted 'present' 90% of the time in the Illinois Senate. Well the stock markets around the world today made a statement about his leadership of our (and the world's economy); a statement about his performance.
The average American is becoming more and more educated about this debt crisis and Obama's 'golden voice' has lost its impact. This so-called leader has already had 37 fund raising events in just 2 1/2 years in office, and at a time this country has been hurting badly. But he should be able to celebrate his birthday and if you have the money to shell out $34,800 you can attend his party tonight; and if you kick in another $10,000 you can get your picture taken with him. Most of us would agree that you have to be rich to pay $35K to attend a birthday party and it's ironic that these are the same rich people with private jets and yachts that he demonizes in every speech. But these are HIS rich people.
The experts are telling us that Obama has no more arrows in the quiver to shoot at this failing economy - I disagree. Here are some 'arrows' that could ignite this failing economy and get it moving at high speed again:
1/ Repeal Obamacare and replace it with a sane health care bill that provides a safety net for truly poor people.
2/ Rescind all the ridiculous EPA and consumer protection regulations that the Obama administration has instituted. Some experts predict these regulations alone will cost American industry a trillion dollars over the next ten years.
3/ Open up Anwar, the Gulf, and both coasts of the USA for responsible oil drilling.
4/ Eliminate all corporate subsidies and tax loopholes and reduce the corporate tax rate to a permanent 25%.
5/ Freeze ALL government spending including salary raises for all employees including the President and Congress, at 2011 fiscal year levels and DO NOT raise it again until the debt is 18% of GDP or below. This includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
6/ Raise the top tax rate of 36% by 10% making it almost 40%. At the same time raise everyone's tax rate 10% including requiring the 50% of Americans that pay no tax to kick in something. Even if they make $10,000 per year why should they not participate in this country with at least a 1% income tax? After all, they benefit from all the services.
7/ Put a reasonable limit on unemployment insurance and require people on welfare to do some form of work, even if it means picking up trash or mowing lawns in local parks.
8/ Finally, cancel this so-called 'super-committee' and tell elected members of Congress to either do their jobs or resign and go home. And that includes our "leader"
Do you think any of these arrows will be put back in the quiver? Not a chance.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
My son Michael as a guest blogger
Some of the ways your government is spending your money
by Michael Strickland on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 9:32am
You may have watched President Obama's speech last night, in which he implored all of us to tell our members of Congress to make a deal on the debt ceiling issue. Specifically, he said that if we default because the debt ceiling is not raised, "we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, and the government contracts we've signed with thousands of businesses."
The president is trying to make you think that retirees won't get their Social Security checks, veterans won't receive their benefits, small businesses won't get paid. That is a scare tactic, plain and simple; our president is playing politics just as much as everyone else in Washington.
If we default, yes -- we will not have enough money to pay ALL of our bills. But we will have plenty of money to pay MOST of our bills. Do you really believe our government will let retirees and veterans go unpaid, while other, much less critical bills get paid? Highly unlikely -- and if so, it will be a political move at the expense of those in need.
Take a look at the following very long list of items in our federal budget that receive billions of dollars. Not only could many of these go without getting paid in favor of paying retirees and veterans until the debt crisis is solved, most of these could (and perhaps should) be cut from our budget entirely. Yes, there are some items like NEA and PBS that many people would want to keep. But do we really need Mohair Subsidies? And is it unreasonable to require federal employees to pay their taxes like the rest of us?
In a perfect world, there would be enough money to go around for everyone's pet programs. But it's time to get serious. We are drowning in debt, and we have to cut runaway spending. When all of us are in debt, do we have the luxury of asking our employer (if we're employed) to raise our salary? No -- we have to cut our spending and live within our means. Ask your government to do the same; don't enable their spending problem by letting them raise more "revenue" (Obama's weasel word for "taxes").
[TOTAL SAVINGS if all of the following were cut: $2.5 trillion over 10 years.]
➢ Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
➢ Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
➢ International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
➢ Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
➢ Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
➢ Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
➢ U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
➢ Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
➢ Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
➢ John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
➢ Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
➢ Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
➢ Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
➢ Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
➢ Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
➢ Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
➢ Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
➢ New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
➢ Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
➢ Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
➢ Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
➢ Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
➢ Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
➢ FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
➢ Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
➢ U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
➢ General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
➢ Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
➢ No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
➢ End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
➢ Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
➢ IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
➢ Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
➢ Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
➢ Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
➢ USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
➢ Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-gets-specific-on-cuts_n_811557.html
The president is trying to make you think that retirees won't get their Social Security checks, veterans won't receive their benefits, small businesses won't get paid. That is a scare tactic, plain and simple; our president is playing politics just as much as everyone else in Washington.
If we default, yes -- we will not have enough money to pay ALL of our bills. But we will have plenty of money to pay MOST of our bills. Do you really believe our government will let retirees and veterans go unpaid, while other, much less critical bills get paid? Highly unlikely -- and if so, it will be a political move at the expense of those in need.
Take a look at the following very long list of items in our federal budget that receive billions of dollars. Not only could many of these go without getting paid in favor of paying retirees and veterans until the debt crisis is solved, most of these could (and perhaps should) be cut from our budget entirely. Yes, there are some items like NEA and PBS that many people would want to keep. But do we really need Mohair Subsidies? And is it unreasonable to require federal employees to pay their taxes like the rest of us?
In a perfect world, there would be enough money to go around for everyone's pet programs. But it's time to get serious. We are drowning in debt, and we have to cut runaway spending. When all of us are in debt, do we have the luxury of asking our employer (if we're employed) to raise our salary? No -- we have to cut our spending and live within our means. Ask your government to do the same; don't enable their spending problem by letting them raise more "revenue" (Obama's weasel word for "taxes").
[TOTAL SAVINGS if all of the following were cut: $2.5 trillion over 10 years.]
➢ Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
➢ Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
➢ International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
➢ Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
➢ Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
➢ Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
➢ U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
➢ Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
➢ Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
➢ John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
➢ Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
➢ Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
➢ Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
➢ Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
➢ Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
➢ Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
➢ Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
➢ New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
➢ Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
➢ Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
➢ Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
➢ Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
➢ Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
➢ FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
➢ Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
➢ U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
➢ General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
➢ Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
➢ No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
➢ End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
➢ Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
➢ IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
➢ Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
➢ Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
➢ Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
➢ USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
➢ Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-gets-specific-on-cuts_n_811557.html
Thursday, July 14, 2011
"Eat your peas"
Obama in a recent speech about the debt limit deadline: "It's not going to get easier. It's going to get harder. So we might as well do it now: pull off the Band-Aid, eat our peas. Now is the time to do it. If not now, when?"
As the debt ceiling deadline draws near these clowns in Washington are acting like eight year olds, just blaming each other with both sides not willing to negotiate while the American people stand to be the big losers. The national debt is going to bankrupt this country and some very serious cuts in spending need to be made. But as a conservative Republican I also agree that there are probably tax loopholes that can be eliminated (ethanol subsidy, etc.).
I know about negotiating, especially when the subject is "eat your peas". When my youngest son was eight years old, one evening he refused to eat his peas at dinner. I had had a bad day at work and reverting to the way my parents raised me, I told him; "You are not leaving the table until you eat your peas". He sat there and stared forward, making no effort to eat. So I dug in my heels and we left him at the table and I told him he could not get up until he ate his peas. A half hour passed, he just sat there - no progress, another half hour, no progress. Finally I lost my cool and told him; "Eat your peas or you will get the strap!" His response; "How many times? ". He won the battle.
But here is my point; if an eight year old can master the art of negotiation these so-called politicians we elect to represent us need to figure out how to get their act together. And Obama needs to start showing some leadership and solve this problem. He is the key and so far his performance as our president has been pitiful in his ability to manage this country's financial affairs.
Conspirators believe he is deliberately trying to let this country's economy fail so it can be converted to a socialist society. I have never bought into that, but sometimes I wonder.
As the debt ceiling deadline draws near these clowns in Washington are acting like eight year olds, just blaming each other with both sides not willing to negotiate while the American people stand to be the big losers. The national debt is going to bankrupt this country and some very serious cuts in spending need to be made. But as a conservative Republican I also agree that there are probably tax loopholes that can be eliminated (ethanol subsidy, etc.).
I know about negotiating, especially when the subject is "eat your peas". When my youngest son was eight years old, one evening he refused to eat his peas at dinner. I had had a bad day at work and reverting to the way my parents raised me, I told him; "You are not leaving the table until you eat your peas". He sat there and stared forward, making no effort to eat. So I dug in my heels and we left him at the table and I told him he could not get up until he ate his peas. A half hour passed, he just sat there - no progress, another half hour, no progress. Finally I lost my cool and told him; "Eat your peas or you will get the strap!" His response; "How many times? ". He won the battle.
But here is my point; if an eight year old can master the art of negotiation these so-called politicians we elect to represent us need to figure out how to get their act together. And Obama needs to start showing some leadership and solve this problem. He is the key and so far his performance as our president has been pitiful in his ability to manage this country's financial affairs.
Conspirators believe he is deliberately trying to let this country's economy fail so it can be converted to a socialist society. I have never bought into that, but sometimes I wonder.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Goodbye "Goldie"
I love California because we are such a progressive state and have always been in the "lead". We lead with the highest gas prices in the country, we are 12% of the population of the USA but lead with 32% of the welfare cases, we lead with the largest debt of any state in the country, and being an environmental leader we are banning plastic bags in most metropolitan areas. Is this a great state or what?
Recently, San Fransisco the most progressive city in our state is banning circumcision and has proposed banning the sale of goldfish because of the inhumane life they lead swimming in a little tank. I have to agree with this ban and am pleased that the politicians in that city are working on these serious problems.
Living in the country we know about inhumane treatment of goldfish and I am reminded of a blog I wrote many years ago so thought it appropriate to post it again:
Recently, San Fransisco the most progressive city in our state is banning circumcision and has proposed banning the sale of goldfish because of the inhumane life they lead swimming in a little tank. I have to agree with this ban and am pleased that the politicians in that city are working on these serious problems.
Living in the country we know about inhumane treatment of goldfish and I am reminded of a blog I wrote many years ago so thought it appropriate to post it again:
Lipstick
Her name was "Lipstick."
Not that she wore a lot of make-up; to my knowledge she didn’t wear any. She wasn’t beautiful, but she had that look that makes females attractive. Large eyes, some would say too far apart, but they always seemed to be wide open and full of life. Her large beautiful lips glowed a golden color in the sun, and that’s how she got her name.
Lipstick became part of our family last year and has been a constant companion ever since. Joining me for my morning coffee most days, her body moved with the grace of a bird, gliding with effortless motion as we both relaxed in the morning sun.
She could have spent her life in the city, safely enclosed behind four glass walls, but chose instead the country, surrounded by the sounds of birds and waterfalls.
But Lipstick is gone. A victim of nature’s cruel cycle of life, after becoming a midnight snack to a hungry raccoon. She is now in that great goldfish pond in the sky, swimming to her heart’s content for all eternity.
These are the harsh realities of living in the country, surrounded by wild turkeys and Indian casinos. But it was our choice to move here, and as we forge out a life in this untamed wilderness, we will think of Lipstick often, and keep a vigilant watch for the wily raccoon who is most likely planning his next raid on our goldfish pond.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Israeli Pundits and Politicians
I watched the meeting today between Obama and Netenyahu and it was refreshing to see the Israeli Prime Minister take this "man-child" to the woodshed and teach him what leadership is all about.
But I find it amusing how the political pundits and the politicians have "analyzed" the situation between Israel and the US after Obama's speech Thursday and this meeting today.
I have been to Israel and have a basic understanding of the Israeli situation, and have to laugh at the pundits after this week events. Obama was given a verbal spanking by Netenyahu today but afterwards I watched a democratic pundit say: " Obama is brilliant, this is a chess game he is playing and he knows exactly what he is doing". Who the hell pays these people to make such stupid comments?
If you are even a casual student of history or have read bible history, it has to be clear that there is no way the Israelis will accept a compromise that might sacrifice their security or make them give up their homeland. I visited Israel in the late sixties after the 'six day war' and the one message that came through loud and clear from all the Israelis I talked to was; "No retreating and to the last man there will never be another Holocaust".
I don't know if Obama is a Muslim sympathizer or if he and his advisers are just plain stupid. But I know that in one short speech this week Obama moved the peace talks back a decade. Netenyahu told Obama in no uncertain terms on national TV today that there will be no retreating from the 1967 borders and unless we change our "new" policy towards the Israel/Palestinian problem, there will never be a peace treaty.
It's pathetic when the leader of a small country like Israel can make our President look like such a novice. But in the words of that great philosopher Forrest Gump; "Stupid is as stupid does".
But I find it amusing how the political pundits and the politicians have "analyzed" the situation between Israel and the US after Obama's speech Thursday and this meeting today.
I have been to Israel and have a basic understanding of the Israeli situation, and have to laugh at the pundits after this week events. Obama was given a verbal spanking by Netenyahu today but afterwards I watched a democratic pundit say: " Obama is brilliant, this is a chess game he is playing and he knows exactly what he is doing". Who the hell pays these people to make such stupid comments?
If you are even a casual student of history or have read bible history, it has to be clear that there is no way the Israelis will accept a compromise that might sacrifice their security or make them give up their homeland. I visited Israel in the late sixties after the 'six day war' and the one message that came through loud and clear from all the Israelis I talked to was; "No retreating and to the last man there will never be another Holocaust".
I don't know if Obama is a Muslim sympathizer or if he and his advisers are just plain stupid. But I know that in one short speech this week Obama moved the peace talks back a decade. Netenyahu told Obama in no uncertain terms on national TV today that there will be no retreating from the 1967 borders and unless we change our "new" policy towards the Israel/Palestinian problem, there will never be a peace treaty.
It's pathetic when the leader of a small country like Israel can make our President look like such a novice. But in the words of that great philosopher Forrest Gump; "Stupid is as stupid does".
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Are we too far gone?
I read this week that for the first time more people in the US are on government assistance than those who are not. In other words, there are more people riding in the wagon than are pulling it.
At first that statistic is hard to believe until you think about the growth in government assistance during the Bush administration, and even more so since the Obama administration took over. In addition to the normal entitlements like social security, Medicare, Medicaid (and if Obamacare becomes law 50 million people getting assistance with their insurance premiums), also consider the following:
Forty million people on food stamps; millions more on welfare; 99 weeks of unemployment insurance; subsidies for people whose mortgage is in default; school lunch programs; college assistance programs; remember "cash for clunkers"?; how about $7500 government assistance if you buy a GM Volt?. In addition there will be unforeseen government assistance to victims of natural disasters - floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.
It is not my intention to debate whether or not all of these programs are necessary. I'm sure many are vital and there is no question the "baby boomers" are presenting a huge financial burden on this country. BUT WE HAVE NO MONEY! The national debt is insanity and approaching a level that will be impossible to overcome. Are we too far gone?
The debt is at $14.5 trillion dollars (and climbing) and is so large that most Americans cannot even comprehend it. To put it in perspective we are borrowing $188 million every hour. Congressman Paul Ryan recently proposed a budget that will "reduce" the debt by $6 trillion dollars in ten years. It was immediately dismissed by democratic politicians and president Obama as "radical". Now let's see, this so-called radical budget will reduce the deficit to just $8.5 trillion by the year - 2021, this is assuming no major disasters, terrorist attacks, wars, etc.
Next week will be a debate about raising the debt limit. If the republicans and moderate democrats vote to raise it again, you will have the answer - we are too far gone. Politicians talk about a 'Balanced Budget Amendment" to the Constitution. Realistically that would take 5-10 years, even it if received affirmative votes throughout the very complicated process. Here is my idea for a quick balanced budget amendment - freeze the debt ceiling permanently and tell the US government "that's all folks". Make interest payments first, then tell the managers of our government agencies to divide up the balance and do whatever is required to keep the country functioning. It could be painful, but as simple as that.
We approach the debt limit in just a week and what action do we see in Washington? While Obama goes on Opra and gives press conferences about his birth certificate, our politicians enjoy the remainder of their two week "spring break".
At first that statistic is hard to believe until you think about the growth in government assistance during the Bush administration, and even more so since the Obama administration took over. In addition to the normal entitlements like social security, Medicare, Medicaid (and if Obamacare becomes law 50 million people getting assistance with their insurance premiums), also consider the following:
Forty million people on food stamps; millions more on welfare; 99 weeks of unemployment insurance; subsidies for people whose mortgage is in default; school lunch programs; college assistance programs; remember "cash for clunkers"?; how about $7500 government assistance if you buy a GM Volt?. In addition there will be unforeseen government assistance to victims of natural disasters - floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.
It is not my intention to debate whether or not all of these programs are necessary. I'm sure many are vital and there is no question the "baby boomers" are presenting a huge financial burden on this country. BUT WE HAVE NO MONEY! The national debt is insanity and approaching a level that will be impossible to overcome. Are we too far gone?
The debt is at $14.5 trillion dollars (and climbing) and is so large that most Americans cannot even comprehend it. To put it in perspective we are borrowing $188 million every hour. Congressman Paul Ryan recently proposed a budget that will "reduce" the debt by $6 trillion dollars in ten years. It was immediately dismissed by democratic politicians and president Obama as "radical". Now let's see, this so-called radical budget will reduce the deficit to just $8.5 trillion by the year - 2021, this is assuming no major disasters, terrorist attacks, wars, etc.
Next week will be a debate about raising the debt limit. If the republicans and moderate democrats vote to raise it again, you will have the answer - we are too far gone. Politicians talk about a 'Balanced Budget Amendment" to the Constitution. Realistically that would take 5-10 years, even it if received affirmative votes throughout the very complicated process. Here is my idea for a quick balanced budget amendment - freeze the debt ceiling permanently and tell the US government "that's all folks". Make interest payments first, then tell the managers of our government agencies to divide up the balance and do whatever is required to keep the country functioning. It could be painful, but as simple as that.
We approach the debt limit in just a week and what action do we see in Washington? While Obama goes on Opra and gives press conferences about his birth certificate, our politicians enjoy the remainder of their two week "spring break".
Sunday, April 3, 2011
"The Social Network"
If you have not seen this movie it is worth watching. And if you are a very observant grandfather (like me) with the ability to step the DVD through frame by frame, you will see my grand daughter in the 'dance scene'...it's only a few seconds, but she is a beauty. OK...that's not the point of this blog.
Facebook started as a local Harvard experiment in 2004 by a young man wanting to get students in touch with each other, and since has become a worldwide phenomenon. It has also made its 20+ year old founder the youngest billionaire in the world.
I love Facebook because I can follow the day-to-day activities of my large family and many friends, communicate with them, post pictures, and even get into a spirited debate from time-to-time. But Facebook and other so-called social networks have had a much more profound effect on this world.
I wonder if that young man who started the Facebook experiment at Harvard would have ever dreamed that after a Tunisian vendor set himself on fire to protest his totalitarian government, that the simple communication between people on the internet would set the Middle East on fire. That one incident has caused revolts from people wanting freedom in Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and now especially Libya and Syria. Countries that have for centuries been ruled by an iron fist are being brought to their knees by a network of communication that is slowly bringing this world together and allowing people who have been isolated all their lives to see what freedom is all about.
Think about China and their 1+ billion people who are mostly oppressed without the ability to communicate with the rest of the world. The Chinese government controls all aspects of the internet, but sooner or later technology will win out and when their citizens start realizing what they might be able to achieve in a truly free society, the Chinese government may have the biggest revolt of them all.
Isn't it ironic that all the guns, arrests, torture, and prisons that maintain control in these totalitarian states may some day be defeated by the technology resulting from some college boy at Harvard trying to get students to "network" with each other?
Facebook started as a local Harvard experiment in 2004 by a young man wanting to get students in touch with each other, and since has become a worldwide phenomenon. It has also made its 20+ year old founder the youngest billionaire in the world.
I love Facebook because I can follow the day-to-day activities of my large family and many friends, communicate with them, post pictures, and even get into a spirited debate from time-to-time. But Facebook and other so-called social networks have had a much more profound effect on this world.
I wonder if that young man who started the Facebook experiment at Harvard would have ever dreamed that after a Tunisian vendor set himself on fire to protest his totalitarian government, that the simple communication between people on the internet would set the Middle East on fire. That one incident has caused revolts from people wanting freedom in Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and now especially Libya and Syria. Countries that have for centuries been ruled by an iron fist are being brought to their knees by a network of communication that is slowly bringing this world together and allowing people who have been isolated all their lives to see what freedom is all about.
Think about China and their 1+ billion people who are mostly oppressed without the ability to communicate with the rest of the world. The Chinese government controls all aspects of the internet, but sooner or later technology will win out and when their citizens start realizing what they might be able to achieve in a truly free society, the Chinese government may have the biggest revolt of them all.
Isn't it ironic that all the guns, arrests, torture, and prisons that maintain control in these totalitarian states may some day be defeated by the technology resulting from some college boy at Harvard trying to get students to "network" with each other?
Friday, March 4, 2011
Newt can't win
Newt Gingrich has formed a "presidential exploratory committee". He says that he is not sure if he will run for president, but we all know the political dance - he will be running for president against Obama. And he cannot win.
I am a fan of Newt and he is an intellectual giant compared to Obama. In a debate he would make Obama look like a high school political science student, but he cannot win.
It's sad, but in today's environment of 24 hour news and a left wing media that creates the images for the masses, Newt cannot compete with Obama. The reason - the average American is not that smart or better said; not that interested in politics except for what they get from the two minute sound bites.
Newt is smart and tough; if elected he would be a great president and he would replace the most incompetent president in this country's history. But he has personal baggage, he doesn't have a good physical "image", and the media would destroy him.
I hope I am wrong, but I believe the Republicans need a fresh, intelligent, and tough new candidate that will be able to convince the American public that this country is in deep trouble, while at the same time has the gift of charisma and political polish that our incompetent "Golden Boy" has.
I am a fan of Newt and he is an intellectual giant compared to Obama. In a debate he would make Obama look like a high school political science student, but he cannot win.
It's sad, but in today's environment of 24 hour news and a left wing media that creates the images for the masses, Newt cannot compete with Obama. The reason - the average American is not that smart or better said; not that interested in politics except for what they get from the two minute sound bites.
Newt is smart and tough; if elected he would be a great president and he would replace the most incompetent president in this country's history. But he has personal baggage, he doesn't have a good physical "image", and the media would destroy him.
I hope I am wrong, but I believe the Republicans need a fresh, intelligent, and tough new candidate that will be able to convince the American public that this country is in deep trouble, while at the same time has the gift of charisma and political polish that our incompetent "Golden Boy" has.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The "Union" Myth
Now let me get this straight - unions are good, they "rise up" middle class workers - which middle class workers? Unions argue that they need collective bargaining to increase the pay and benefits for workers. The operative word here is "collective". Maybe in the short term that is the case but in the long term unionism breeds mediocrity and individual incentive and lines the pockets of union organizers who spend union money trying to get Democrats elected to protect their power base.
Just as the Democrats (Progressives) are champions of "income redistribution", I contend that unionization is nothing more than redistribution of performance and productivity. Let's look at two hypothetical examples - two high schools:
Let's call the first high school 'Strickland High'. Teachers are non-unionized and they keep their job based strictly on their performance. The better performing teachers get the highest pay.
Let's call the second high school 'Obama High'. The teachers are unionized, they get paid strictly based on their seniority not their performance, and after a few years they get tenure and cannot be fired.
I believe that in any group of teachers, some will be above average, some will be below average, but there will probably be one great teacher and one complete loser. At Strickland High, before long the loser will be fired and replaced with a better teacher and the great teacher will get a raise in pay thus increasing the overall performance and morale at the school.
At Obama High the union will protect all the teachers' jobs, so the "loser" will quickly become a "union man" knowing that his job is secure and his pay and benefits are the same as everyone else with his seniority. But over time a natural thing starts happening at Obama High. The great teacher gets frustrated because she busts her butt trying to be the best teacher, while getting little more recognition than the loser.
In the meantime Strickland High, not satisfied with another one of their low performing teachers, fires him and hires the frustrated "great teacher" from Obama High resulting in further increasing the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High and at the same time lowering the performance of the unionized teachers group at Obama High.
So as this pattern continues over time, the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High continues to improve, the performance of the students continues to improve, and the parents are waiting in line to get their children enrolled. While at the same time the unionized, tenured teachers at Obama High plug along, knowing their job is secure and they cannot be fired. While at the same time, the high performers at Obama High get frustrated and leave to work in an environment like Strickland High where individual performance is rewarded.
Obama High then slowly becomes one of our typical low performing schools with teachers ready to protest if anyone threatens their situation, while the parents of the Obama High students complain and wonder why their kids under-perform, fail in science and math, and can hardly read or write a proper sentence.
Which school system do you want your children to attend?
Just as the Democrats (Progressives) are champions of "income redistribution", I contend that unionization is nothing more than redistribution of performance and productivity. Let's look at two hypothetical examples - two high schools:
Let's call the first high school 'Strickland High'. Teachers are non-unionized and they keep their job based strictly on their performance. The better performing teachers get the highest pay.
Let's call the second high school 'Obama High'. The teachers are unionized, they get paid strictly based on their seniority not their performance, and after a few years they get tenure and cannot be fired.
I believe that in any group of teachers, some will be above average, some will be below average, but there will probably be one great teacher and one complete loser. At Strickland High, before long the loser will be fired and replaced with a better teacher and the great teacher will get a raise in pay thus increasing the overall performance and morale at the school.
At Obama High the union will protect all the teachers' jobs, so the "loser" will quickly become a "union man" knowing that his job is secure and his pay and benefits are the same as everyone else with his seniority. But over time a natural thing starts happening at Obama High. The great teacher gets frustrated because she busts her butt trying to be the best teacher, while getting little more recognition than the loser.
In the meantime Strickland High, not satisfied with another one of their low performing teachers, fires him and hires the frustrated "great teacher" from Obama High resulting in further increasing the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High and at the same time lowering the performance of the unionized teachers group at Obama High.
So as this pattern continues over time, the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High continues to improve, the performance of the students continues to improve, and the parents are waiting in line to get their children enrolled. While at the same time the unionized, tenured teachers at Obama High plug along, knowing their job is secure and they cannot be fired. While at the same time, the high performers at Obama High get frustrated and leave to work in an environment like Strickland High where individual performance is rewarded.
Obama High then slowly becomes one of our typical low performing schools with teachers ready to protest if anyone threatens their situation, while the parents of the Obama High students complain and wonder why their kids under-perform, fail in science and math, and can hardly read or write a proper sentence.
Which school system do you want your children to attend?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The Entitlement Bandwagon
OK I confess; I listen to Rush Limbaugh from time to time. The other day the subject was "redistribution of income". And of course this is a pillar in the divide between Democrats and Republicans - if you are obtaining wealth why shouldn't you give some of it back to those less fortunate? And who can argue with that.
But there is a difference between charity to help your fellow human being get through a tough period, or to recover from a disaster, and giving them an on-going "entitlement". It is an indisputable fact that Americans are the most charitable people in the world. But why are any of us, even if we are poor, "entitled" to share in the success of people who by virtue of hard work (and sometimes luck) have obtained a certain amount of wealth. Doesn't the tax system take care of that? Last year almost 50% of Americans paid no federal income tax, while the top earners paid 36% of their income to the federal government - isn't that redistribution of income - after all someone has to pay for our bloated government services.
But for Democrats (and now they call themselves Progressives?), that is not enough.
On this Rush Limbaugh program, a woman called in and she said it was her "right" to receive a portion of the income that "rich" people get; "I live in the hood, and we need to be taken care of". That is a serious problem in this country - "entitlement" vs. short term help when people really need it. We all face obstacles in our lives, and quite often need help until we get our feet on the ground; that is not an entitlement.
But the entitlement mentality has become a disease in this country. No longer do people look for help to get through a tough period - for some it has become a way of life and in many cases for generations.
I believe every human being starts out in life with a desire to "achieve"...it's human nature. That desire to achieve may take many forms - provide a good home for your family, or a successful career, or in some cases driving ambition to achieve great things. The goal doesn't matter, but the desire to achieve is something that is natural to all of us.
But provide a person "something for nothing" for any length of time and that desire to achieve slowly dies out and they become a "dependent". Some believe the Democrats/Progressives want a dependent society as the only way they can retain power. I can't believe they would be so sinister, but one thing is indisputable, after spending trillions of dollars, the "Great Society" and every other entitlement program in history has failed. The poverty level is the same today as it was 50 years ago and some people are mired in a lifetime of despair and dependency.
I really believe that woman who called Rush had been a potential "achiever" at one time if she had the incentive to do so, but because of a lifetime and maybe even a generational history of entitlements, she now just wants to be "taken care of"...how sad.
But there is a difference between charity to help your fellow human being get through a tough period, or to recover from a disaster, and giving them an on-going "entitlement". It is an indisputable fact that Americans are the most charitable people in the world. But why are any of us, even if we are poor, "entitled" to share in the success of people who by virtue of hard work (and sometimes luck) have obtained a certain amount of wealth. Doesn't the tax system take care of that? Last year almost 50% of Americans paid no federal income tax, while the top earners paid 36% of their income to the federal government - isn't that redistribution of income - after all someone has to pay for our bloated government services.
But for Democrats (and now they call themselves Progressives?), that is not enough.
On this Rush Limbaugh program, a woman called in and she said it was her "right" to receive a portion of the income that "rich" people get; "I live in the hood, and we need to be taken care of". That is a serious problem in this country - "entitlement" vs. short term help when people really need it. We all face obstacles in our lives, and quite often need help until we get our feet on the ground; that is not an entitlement.
But the entitlement mentality has become a disease in this country. No longer do people look for help to get through a tough period - for some it has become a way of life and in many cases for generations.
I believe every human being starts out in life with a desire to "achieve"...it's human nature. That desire to achieve may take many forms - provide a good home for your family, or a successful career, or in some cases driving ambition to achieve great things. The goal doesn't matter, but the desire to achieve is something that is natural to all of us.
But provide a person "something for nothing" for any length of time and that desire to achieve slowly dies out and they become a "dependent". Some believe the Democrats/Progressives want a dependent society as the only way they can retain power. I can't believe they would be so sinister, but one thing is indisputable, after spending trillions of dollars, the "Great Society" and every other entitlement program in history has failed. The poverty level is the same today as it was 50 years ago and some people are mired in a lifetime of despair and dependency.
I really believe that woman who called Rush had been a potential "achiever" at one time if she had the incentive to do so, but because of a lifetime and maybe even a generational history of entitlements, she now just wants to be "taken care of"...how sad.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
I am a "radical"
I am a right wing radical. I'm not sure how I turned out this way, but I did. These days it seems to be normal to blame your parents for your failings, so that's what I'm going to do. I grew up in a poor household; for a while my dad was an alcoholic but he got sober, on his own, without any help from social services or rehab programs. But I am sure those vague memories I have of him coming home drunk, and yet he and my mother somehow working out their problems, contributed toward my development as a future radical.
Even though my parents were poor, and went through many difficult years raising three boys, to my knowledge they never accepted help from anyone nor would they have ever considered reneging on a debt no matter how long it took to pay it off. They were not very political but were Republicans, I think mainly because after World War II my dad would not have voted for any presidential candidate except general Dwight Eisenhower or "Ike" as they called him. So I guess being the son of "Republicans" started me off on my path towards being a radical.
Parents were strict in those days and being one of three "somewhat wild" boys (we did have our share of trouble), when I look back I recall my parents always taking the side of the school teachers or administrators, and even in a few cases the police. They never tried to claim our "innocence" with school officials, and they never took legal action when we broke ankles or arms on the neighbor's ice skating pond or playing tackle football without equipment at the local park. I am sure this attitude about us kids taking "personal responsibility" for our actions had something to do with me becoming a radical.
During the past week those of us that are Conservatives have been defined as radicals. There was no sense to it but the main stream media who have so much control in this country have done a very good job of redefining what a "radical" is in this country. If you believe that the government is too intrusive in your life, you are a radical. If you believe that the national debt can potentially ruin the lives of your children or grandchildren, you are a radical. If you believe that everyone should take personal responsibility for themselves except when they seriously need help, you are a radical. If you believe that people that live in this country should be citizens or should be legally here as a guest, you are a radical.
I could go on about how I became a radical, but if my parents were here they would not recognize this country. They would not believe you can get three years of "unemployment insurance"; or if you made a loan commitment you cannot pay for, there is a government program to help you get out of paying that debt; or if you can't provide for your children, their school will provide all their meals; or if your child broke their arm playing football at the local park, there is a lawyer somewhere that will get you a cash payout.
The main stream media has done such a good job of defining our new culture, that those of us who remember the "old days" in this country are now radicals. I guess if they were alive, my parents would be proud that I am defined as a radical.
Even though my parents were poor, and went through many difficult years raising three boys, to my knowledge they never accepted help from anyone nor would they have ever considered reneging on a debt no matter how long it took to pay it off. They were not very political but were Republicans, I think mainly because after World War II my dad would not have voted for any presidential candidate except general Dwight Eisenhower or "Ike" as they called him. So I guess being the son of "Republicans" started me off on my path towards being a radical.
Parents were strict in those days and being one of three "somewhat wild" boys (we did have our share of trouble), when I look back I recall my parents always taking the side of the school teachers or administrators, and even in a few cases the police. They never tried to claim our "innocence" with school officials, and they never took legal action when we broke ankles or arms on the neighbor's ice skating pond or playing tackle football without equipment at the local park. I am sure this attitude about us kids taking "personal responsibility" for our actions had something to do with me becoming a radical.
During the past week those of us that are Conservatives have been defined as radicals. There was no sense to it but the main stream media who have so much control in this country have done a very good job of redefining what a "radical" is in this country. If you believe that the government is too intrusive in your life, you are a radical. If you believe that the national debt can potentially ruin the lives of your children or grandchildren, you are a radical. If you believe that everyone should take personal responsibility for themselves except when they seriously need help, you are a radical. If you believe that people that live in this country should be citizens or should be legally here as a guest, you are a radical.
I could go on about how I became a radical, but if my parents were here they would not recognize this country. They would not believe you can get three years of "unemployment insurance"; or if you made a loan commitment you cannot pay for, there is a government program to help you get out of paying that debt; or if you can't provide for your children, their school will provide all their meals; or if your child broke their arm playing football at the local park, there is a lawyer somewhere that will get you a cash payout.
The main stream media has done such a good job of defining our new culture, that those of us who remember the "old days" in this country are now radicals. I guess if they were alive, my parents would be proud that I am defined as a radical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
