The End of Liberalism …NOT!

Conservatives like Joe Scarborough, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and others are using the troubles of the Affordable Health Care Act to push their message that liberalism and government does not work. In their minds, the two go together as a package.

The Republican Conservative machine like Fox News, talk radio, Frank Lutz and politicians are spearheading this message, not your FB Republicans, relatives, or tea party uncle, because they are merely parroting what they hear.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy because if they can get elected based on being anti- government, everything they do to disrupt government progress is a plus. They run on a platform of smaller government and never on efficient government. For example, the FDA may be undermanned but TSA may have too many people working for them. I’ve always found that 16 intelligent gathering agencies make them less efficient.

It’s worth mentioning again, Conservatives are great campaigners, but they suck at governing because it goes against their principles. Their main goal is less government and more free market, but they just want government to protect our country and deliver the mail. They’re doing everything possible to take mail delivery away from them. If that’s the case do we need all those congressmen? The non-libertarian conservatives do want big government when it comes to social issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

We should never underestimate conservatives because they wake up, eat their breakfast cereal, drink their cup of coffee and their minds instantly switches into gear thinking of ways they can indoctrinate the whole country. They eat, sleep and drink this ideology, and it’s as much of them as their religion is. Joe Scarborough is a great example of this, just this morning he introduced Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia as being a great conservative model despite the fact that the governor is mired in a bribery scandal.

On the other hand, Liberals/Progressives do think that government has a role to play, but they’re more compromising. For example, the public option and single payer were not a viable option in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. They settled for universal health care using expanded Medicaid and private insurance companies. Liberals/Progressives do take a firm stance against the voucher system, whether it be in education or Medicare because they see it as a first step toward privatization. I’ve always said that government is the equalizer.

It’s getting a bit confusing because conservatives of all stripes are trying to take the dominant position of the political party they chose to participate in. The old established Republicans talked of small government but expanded the defense department. The new tea party Republicans wants smaller government, but their method puts a choke hold on growth.

Right now, there’s a total distrust in government; unfortunately that will eventually lead to economic failure. Is that the goal of conservatism?

If you were born after 1958..Play close attention

The 2012 presidential election will be the most important one in our lifetime because voters will get to vote on the direction of the country. It’s possible that the presidential candidates will nominate at least one Supreme Court judge in the next four years but most importantly the eventual winner will decide the direction our country will  take in reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending.

Mitt Romney made an outstanding choice, but it was one he had to take since he was boxed in. The Romney campaign saw that the numbers were definitely in favor of the president. Mitt Romney has changed the topic from being about his tax returns, now  that he's picked a person who will share the criticism from  the Democrats. The choice pleases the conservative base and the opposition party. Congressman Ryan is a decent well -liked family man who knows his supply-side economics'. Paul Ryan is supposed to be a deficit hawk, but he voted for the two Bush tax cuts, the two wars, a prescription-drug plan that was not paid for and the Bush bailout of Wall Street, and the GM bailout, President Bush started. Saturday, Paul Ryan admitted that President Obama was left with a bad hand but said that he left the country in worse shape; which is impossible since the Obama's administration inherited losing 750,000 jobs a month? He went onto say that the president controlled both houses and he got everything he wanted, which was not true. He left out the part where the Senate used parliamentary tricks and the filibuster to deny the president. The president got what he could barely pass because the GOP fought him on every proposal. That's history; we will now have discussions on the serious matters.

It's important to know that Paul Ryan's first budget included a voucher(he called it premium support) to replace Medicare as we know it, but he got a lot of flak from his fellow Republicans, so he changed it and got one democratic senator to co-sponsor Ryan II, which included an option to opt out.The Ryan II bill passed the house but failed in the Senate. Last night, Mitt Romney slammed the president saying he stole $700 billion from Medicare to finance Obama Care. Right next to Romney sat Paul Ryan whose budget does the same thing but Ryan's cuts will go to the beneficiaries, and Obama's cuts are on the providers. The president's action saved Medicare an additional eight years, which is not enough, but it's a start. The Republicans know after many years of losing the Medicare fight that this popular program is considered a Holy Grail. The first thing that they will say, " if you are currently on Medicare your benefits will remain the same" that's not exactly true because prescriptions drugs will be higher if the Republicans repeal, the Affordable Care Act and the doughnut hole goes unfilled. Those people younger than 54 will have to consider that but probably won't. The younger folks will also have to entertain the idea of buying health insurance at age 65 with a voucher capped at a certain percentage of GDP. It's basically putting the extra cost on the beneficiary instead of the federal government. Paul Ryan's budget will issue block grants to the states for Medicaid. I can see rest homes being a thing of the past and about 17 million poor people without any form of health insurance. Those younger than 54 better take out a membership in a health club,stay active, cut back on your sugar intake and live a health lifestyle or you will have a rude awaking when you turn 65. A large savings account won't hurt because I don't think the private insurance companies will be cheap.

I'm reading an interesting book about how progressives are letting the conservatives identify the issues and the answers. Progressive should be arguing against the upward redistribution of wealth. We could solve the healthcare issue, but the ideas wouldn't pass Congress because it would hurt the health professionals, pharmaceuticals, and hospitals. I'll start with a free market cost analysis. For example, a heart valve replacement costs $160,000 in the U.S. and only $9000 in India and a knee replacement costs $40,000 in our country and only $9000 in India. Using those numbers ,the government could send their Medicare, Medicaid and VA patients to Canada, India, and Singapore and save some big bucks. The savings would offset future premium costs for those patients and dramatically bring down the cost of healthcare. Many would not want to go overseas but there is a way and the free market would force our health care providers to compete. The free market principals' conservatives’ use are always aimed at the people at the bottom. The lower wages and benefits cuts they seek ,consistently come from those who can least afford it. To emphasize a point, the Obama Administration made deals with the pharmaceutical companies, and the American Medical Association and other special-interest groups that defeated the Clinton initiative in 1992. The Obama Administration didn't figure that the healthcare lobbyist would play both sides of the fence, so the Affordable Health Care Act was demonized anyway. The main point is that we outsource jobs that eventually hurt the non-professional, but we would never think about outsourcing the professional workforce. The middle –class are never considered in our trade talks.

The Republicans are going to try to make this election about government vs. the free market, but they will use their interpretation of the free market. In all of Ryan speeches so far, he has ended it by saying, “you built that business" and Mitt Romney emphasizes that by saying, " yes the school bus driver took you to school, but he can't take credit for your good grades." I'm paraphrasing, but it's enough to give you a good picture on how they will run. It's a top-down strategy where government is a wedge issue.

I see where the Romney people are coming out of the woodwork since the announcement of Paul Ryan as the vice president pick. It wasn't lost on the locals because they too are starting to write letters praising Romney after months of silence and obvious disappointment in their GOP's nominee.

There is no doubt that Medicare,Social Security, and Medicaid need some serious reform but so does defense spending. We mustn’t make all the cuts on the social programs without touching defense and asking the wealthy to pay more. I think it’s stupid  and selfish of us to take a 20% tax cut rate (including the wealthy) on the backs of the poor,handicapped,students and the elderly.

A quick analysis of this week's thoughts

I posted my analysis of yesterday's Supreme Court decision and we can discuss that if you want but I want to first describe my experience with that. The posting of my blog was the same and but I soon found out that I couldn't comment because I don't have a Facebook account. Not being able to respond to any criticism or the rare compliment is going to make it pretty awkward. In the old format I pretty much knew who to respond to and the ones to ignore After reading the comments by posters unknown to me; I really didn't know what to expect. Evidently the posters feel the same way about me because I've only received one comment and it was from Jessica. I saw a lot of posts that would have been deleted pretty quickly under the old format. In the old format, I pretty much knew who to respond to and the ones to ignore. The first two days prove that using real names doesn't necessarily promote civility. I'm going to have to find a new way of searching because I used to just check out the avatars and the poster's name and that made it easy scrolling through the latest comments. I believe we can only view the latest 50 comments, then they disappear. That's no good.Hopefully the newness and the kinks in the system, will work itself through, but I'm not liking what I'm seeing right now.

I've seen and heard a lot of comments and about free health care but that's been pretty much the theme when it comes to anything government. For some, buying a postage stamp is considered socialism. It's as if we're having a civil war between the private and the public sector. I wonder if the same people dislike their next door neighbor because they are a teacher, firemen, police officer, or an IRS agent. I was having a good discussion with a poster at ViCad the other day and he said that me we didn't used to have public assistance in the old days,so families and friends took up the slack. I showed him where we've had public assistance since colonial days but I'm sure it didn't change his mind but I'll never know because he didn't respond.A commenter was asking if paying the fine was cheaper than paying for health care. I bet he's probably one of those complaining of people getting free health care.  I can certainly understand the uneasiness of too much government but it seems to me those distinctions are too extreme. I've been saying for quite some time, that this year's election will be about the role of government. I've been asked several times for my definition of how much is too much government.It's supposed to be their idea of making me admit that I want more government. My reply is “that’s a loaded question with an anticipated  numeric answer." The simple answer is whatever takes to make it effective.

 We still have the silliness,the idea of holding the Atty. General of the United States in contempt prompted the Congressional Black Caucus to bringing charges of charge as a reprimand against  Rep. Darrell Issa.  It was defeated 259 to 161, with 24 Democrats siding with all Republicans but it was put in the record.


It's not all bad because Congress just sent President Barack Obama a comprehensive extension of highway and infrastructure projects, along with a one-year extension of low student loan rates that were set to double. I may be wrong but this what the country wants. I don't think constituents mind the partisan battles as long as at a given time both sides will compromise and send the president a needed jobs bill.

Once again you know my "no real rules" policy; if you don't like subject change it to something you want to discuss..... It's open thread Friday.

Too Much Government?

The All American Debate

Yesterday, I watched an informative debate between Paul Ryan, Barney Frank, George Will and Robert Reich. ABC News' "This Week with Christiane Amanpour" and the Miller Center at the University of Virginia are partnering for "The Great American Debates," a series of debates on the key issues of the 2012 presidential campaign. This is going to be a series of events, which will last six weeks. Yesterday's debate was about “Too Much Government" and the panel consisted of two liberals and two conservatives and none on the panel and could be considered a moderate. I think this type of programming is great, but we will have to see in how well it does. I apologize for sounding like a skeptic, but I don't think the American public wants to be informed. They just want to stay in their ideological corners.

Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin led off the discussion by saying that conservatives want smaller government, less regulation, less taxation allowing entrepreneurs to succeed in contrast to the Democrats who want more government in our lives. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts disputed the assertion. He said that we all want smaller government but what is too small or too large. This went on back and forth until President Clinton's former labor Secretary, Robert Reich, said that both parties want effective government, the size can be debated. If the government is too large, then corruption and incompetence will likely follow. If the government is too small, regulations will be ignored, and corruption and incidents will be widespread. Barney Frank brought out the old adage” conservatives want government out of the boardroom but into the bedroom" to which Paul Ryan answered" We just want to retain American values." Barney Frank is a brilliant, comical man with a short temper. He practically dominated the debate. He became a star in the Clinton impeachment hearings. Mr. Frank asked George Will why he was against decriminalizing marijuana. George Will said that he was still studying the consequences of decriminalization. Barney Frank replied “This issue has been out there for decades; you're 65 years old; what's taking you so long?"

The role of government is a favorite subject of mine because I saw the same conservatives' rail against health care, yet that's the first thing that we set up when we go overseas to occupy a country. The liberals who railed against President George W. Bush for his unconstitutional practices of circumventing our civil liberties are allowing this president to do the same when they allowed Congress to pass a law saying that the president of United States can declare a United States citizens an enemy combatant and sentence them to lifetime confinement without a trial. The leaders conveniently attached the amendment to the defense appropriation bill. What legislator would want to be in a political ad for being against funding for the troops? Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said that another amendment could be taken up later, extracting the words that allow the president so much power. We've all heard that before. It's like a temporary sales tax that never goes away. I'm all for increasing the safety of American citizens but not at the risk of taking away Americans civil liberties. For example, if I donated some funds to a nonprofit group which in turn funded a terrorist group; I would be in jeopardy of spending the rest of my life in Guantanamo Bay. Is that farfetched?

I think that we know what the free market will do if it goes unfettered, and it's going to take a decade or so to develop the trust in government it once had. I don't believe anyone thinks welfare is supposed to be a way of life but unfortunately for some, it will be. I don't want to wage war against the wealthy, but I do want them to step up and pay their fair share in proportion to their taxable income. In the words of Elizabeth Warren,(D-MA) "we are proud of the wealthy corporations, but they should also step up and pay a little more for the roads the taxpayer builds, repairs and the public education that the taxpayer provides their employees." Is at a liberal position or is it a position of fairness?

We have an enormous debt and deficit so it is obvious our government is too big, but now we have a debate on picking what goes and what remains. The counterarguments are usually opinions without sufficient data to back up their claims.

What's the solution? I don't really know, but I think I know a good starting place. I think that we need to take away all party labels at the local level. It doesn't matter if a Republican or Democrat sees to it that ditches and roads are maintained. In a city, this size the ideologues have already summed up their candidates ,as to whether they are conservative or liberal, but we don't have to contaminate the rest of the voting pool. It doesn't matter how one feels on abortion at the local level or that some think only conservative Republicans know how to take care the purse strings. That could be interpreted several ways, one being they would give up progress for a $1.25 cut in their property tax. Yes, we want prudent individuals but that comes from within ,not party ideology. Let’s leave partisan politics at the national level, because if we control it at the local and state level, it might become less polarized by the time they get to Washington.Come on now,if this political junkie (25 hours of political shows a week) thinks we are getting too political;it's time to do something....:-)

A little off topic but the lack of traffic at Vic Ad worries me because it's the place where I became interested in on- line journal discussions. A poster said many have turned to Facebook; I tend to agree but I'm not a member, so that’s just a guess. The people at VA say that this is a seasonal lull, perhaps, but I can't remember it lasting so long. There has only been seven comments since 7:00AM and it's now 2:45PM If this trend continues I believe the remaining old timers will not come back because there is no one to discuss a subject with....That leaves me with some options that I may not like because I don't know how lively the discussions can be on Facebook ,even thou my whole family loves Facebook and they have assured me that I won't be disappointed. Personal blogs are easier and because I don't have to take the extra step to make sure that my words are not misconstrued. I've heard that person information can go viral in a matter of seconds.I don't want that.

The Post Office Model

I was listening to several great discussions which I have been accustomed to, every since MSNBC's Chris Hayes became a host of "Up with Chris." One of today's topics was about the problems of the United States Post office. As they were discussing this topic it became apparent to me that there was a life lesson in that subject.

I will continue to say that our country needs a reboot because we're not keeping up with the current trend. It's what happened to our post office. The post office was mandated in the constitution but until recently the taxpayers subsidized it. In 1982 it became a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral.It's the only business that does not cost the taxpayer but it's ruled by them. They haven't been taking taxpayer's money to operate the business and continued to show a profit until about 2006. There were four reasons for this: (a) the demand for postal mail started decreasing and continues that trend today(b) the post office has not shown any innovation to keep up with today's habits(c) they could not compete with their competitors in overnight packaging(d) congressional regulations. Even though the post office doesn't take taxpayer money it still needs congressional approval to raise postal rates or close failing post offices. The most damaging blow on the post office came from a government oversight committee created to protect the taxpayers and the postal employees. According to the report if one were to extract the pension benefits and health care costs the post office would have made a profit, but it's still on a course to fail. The government audits found that the post office did not have enough money set aside to pay for the rising cost of pensions and health care and rather than come up with a workable solution; they added those costs onto an agency that was already headed off the cliff. You take away that government mandate, and the post office would have had a manageable debt.

When the post office closings were posted on our forum for discussion; posters commented that they didn’t need Saturday mail, and if they closed down entirely, it would be alright with them. I think that's a problem we have; too many people have a “I’ve got mine" mindset with individualism being the goal. The post office delivers to our rural areas, and it's the cheapest way to deliver the elderly their drugs. It was suggested that the post office should entertain other ways to bring revenue because the demand for postal mail will continue to drop. Perhaps they could cash checks or collect payments for the utility companies. Their own proposal to lay off 120,000 people will add to our increasingly high unemployment, and will add to our welfare and unemployment compensation rolls. It's a tough problem to solve because if the post office were to increase rates it probably would quicken their demise. I've always thought that the price of a postage stamp was relatively cheap compared to the service. Someone said that postal mail will always be with us because some documents need a signature, but that's not necessarily so. About a month ago Adobe (creators of a PDF) sent me a free offer(3 uses) an application called " Echo Sign" whereby the person could sign a document, scan it to their email in PDF format and instantly the requester would have a legally signed document.

We're like the post office because it should be obvious that we can't solve today's problem with yesterday's solutions. The recent report that just came out should be an eye opener, because the report stated that we've never had people unemployed for so long and more people today are considered poorer than in any other time since the Great Depression. That has not fazed our lawmakers. That report in itself should be telling us that we shouldn't be entertaining tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. We shouldn't be making knee-jerk decisions just because we have a weak economy. For example, it's been brought up that the Keystone XL pipeline should be pushed through because of the possible 20,000 jobs. The environmental concerns and the States' rights of Nebraska should not hinder this project. Have the proponents of this project ever considered that OPEC might saturate the market with cheap oil causing Keystone to lay off half of those employees? What would another environmental disaster do to future projects? We will continue to make bad decisions if we don't consider the view points of others. There's nothing in the rules that say we can't stop in the middle of the stream and change directions if things aren't going according to plan. We don't need finger pointing at each junction.

People across the nation want to replace the entire Congress and replace them with plumbers, mechanics, and shop keepers. We don't live in the 18th Century; we need to correct the system and then hold our representatives accountable. Since we think it's OK for a corporation to be treated like an individual or that Congress can legally use their office to get insider information and profit on it; then we are getting exactly what we ask for. For example, government mandates bankrupted the post office by making them fund future liabilities and the same thing would happen if the private sector had to fund future liabilities. All you have to do is look at the recent bankruptcies where companies asked the courts to get  them out of their unfunded pension liabilities. The private and public sector should have affordable pensions and health care but future liabilities should be properly funded and mandated. I not one that will say "the markets will always self correct" when I've seen mountains of evidence contrary to that theory. We are like children sometimes; we have to be nudged in the right direction. Texting while driving comes to mind; are the guilty going to quit on their own?Some libertarians say that is just another freedom that the government is taking away.  I say when you're freedom jeopardizes the safety of others, it's time to sit down and talk .

Some principles still stand, and they should like " nothing is really free, hard work is rewarded,there's no sure thing and everyone has an agenda." A lot of us were raised with a negative reinforcement approach; we continued that method with our off spring but that was wrong. I believe if  we really think about it,we would realize that we are living in a hybrid nation and we run into many problems when we try to make it something it’s not. Whenever we try to overreach we will always get push-back. For example I think most of us are against abortion but some try for 100% compliance ,then they get instant push-back. It’s the same way for environmental, economic, welfare or other controversial issues.

I bet a lot of you will go away saying " See,I told you government intervention is always the problem." That's not it at all;government has a role but in this case it was too late to apply their approach (although the right one) without considering the consequences of their actions.

The 2012 election is about the role of government

The other night my wife asked me about what all the political commotion was about, so I thought about it for a minute, then I said “it’s all about the role of government." There's one side that wants smaller government, no matter what the circumstances. The other side thinks that government has a role to play. I went on to explain what certain buzzwords meant such as crony capitalism, government intervention, socialism, capitalism, and how they relate to the role of government in our lives.

My wife is not political at all but even an uninterested party knows about the unrest in our country. Her conservative friends are political but she tells me that she just nods and smiles and waits for the proper time to change the subject. I told her that’s a good way to keep good friends but it won't not help her in the upcoming election. I went on to tell her that the next president will probably appoint two replacement Supreme Court judges because we have a couple of judges who are getting along in age and are having health issues. I've told her that Roe vs. Wade will be in serious jeopardy if a couple of conservative judges are appointed.

The role of government whether it be the local, state, or federal is being taken to task and if one supports a position contrary to their belief, they're called a socialist. The definition of socialism is an "economic system based on state ownership of capital." We don't have that in this country unless you want to say Social Security, Medicare, and VA Care are all forms of socialism. I don't think that's where the country is; that's a view taken by extreme right wing conservatives/libertarians.
I see conservative/ libertarian outburst every day when our city gets involved in projects that they think should be left exclusively to the private sector. On one hand, I think that if the projects are kept at arms- link between the city and investors; then its okay. They should also be transparent, legal, and aboveboard. I have yet to see evidence of any wrongdoing in the sale of the pump house. From what I've read it was a win- win for both parties. Sure, it invites suspicion and those deals should be limited if possible. For instance, if no other interested buyer comes forward what’s the city supposed to do? I've seen the pencil pushers make their case using only one side of the ledger. The private sector and the government will not always make the right decision but people hold the government more accountable because they think their mistakes will always raise taxes. They think because they are taxpayers, they have a controlling interest in what the government can do. Technically that's correct but realistically the decisions are left up to the elected officials. Then there are those where the city can do no right, they will complain about construction in front of their business establishment, excessive spending, crony capitalism, and everything else under the sun. I think some are City Council wannabes but they know they can't get elected, so they gripe excessively. It's a good thing that those positions are not permanent but it doesn't help matters if only 17% of the registered voters show up to vote.

I don't keep up with state or local government affairs very much but I do keep up with the federal government. This year we will get a choice; if you want to continue cutting taxes for the wealthy, cutting spending without investing, and believe propping up the corporations will lead us to prosperity then the Republican Party will do that for you. If you want to leave massive cuts until after we start recovering and concentrate on more on innovation, infrastructure repair, and protecting the entitlements but realizing they need reform, then the democrats are your choice.

That's how I see the role of government in this year's election.

A Compelling Weekend

Hurricane Irene dominated the weekend news, but it's it was also a good time to sit back and reflect. It was a huge hurricane but did New York and the eastern seaboard go a little overboard in its coverage? I'm not downplaying any major storm or its affect but Hurricane Katrina was much more powerful, but the response didn't match what we saw this weekend. I know the politicians didn't want to be Katrinasized, so they took the extra precaution. I understand that a category 2 hurricane can cause a lot of havoc in a populous area like the northeast in contrast to the open spaces along the Gulf Coast. Especially, after an earthquake.

The earthquake and hurricane situation were used by Congressmen Eric Cantor and Ron Paul to make a stand on their principles. Erick Cantor said an equal amount of cuts would have to be made to pay for the relief efforts in his district and state. Ron Paul used this opportunity to downplay the importance of FEMA. Ron Paul said, "FEMA is not a good friend of most people in Texas because they only come in and tell you what you can and can't do," Paul said.Paul's statements came before Hurricane Irene made landfall in North Carolina then pummeled the East Coast through the weekend, leaving millions without power and leaving at least 20 dead. “He also told Chris Wallace that we can't afford FEMA because it's full of bureaucracy and our country is broke. Ron Paul voted against Hurricane IKE relief for his constituents in Galveston. Was that a stand on principle or did he know his colleagues would vote for the relief? I think it's the latter but Ron Paul is trying to use the Katrina response to bolster his argument, but that doesn't hold any water because Bill Clinton's FEMA director, James Lee Witt, did a tremendous job. President Bush put his inexperienced cronies at the head of that important agency, and we got what we paid for. Rick Perry got FEMA aid and wanted more. Ron Paul said that we could pull our troops from other countries or reduced foreign aid to pay for FEMA. That's the same line that he uses for Social Security, Medicare, and any other government program. Ron Paul is pretty consistent, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, yourself up by your bootstraps and if you don't have bootstraps, you've done something wrong to get yourself in that situation." It's the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

The talk shows were lacking this weekend due to the coverage of Hurricane Irene, but the topic was centered pretty much over the Republican front runners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. They pointed out the lack of foreign policy credentials will not be a factor in the next election. It's Ron Paul making all the foreign policy news because of his nonintervention views. Mr. Paul said Al qaida may now be in Libya. He's taking a small point and exaggerating it. Some of the rebels who took part in the overthrow of the Libyan government did enlist in the fighting in Iraq against us, but they weren't really members of Al qaida. There were more like adventurous mercenaries out for the weekend thrill. We just killed Al Qaida’s number two, Omar Qaddafi has been overthrown, and so forth, or we just around the corner or just running in place? I don't know, but it calls for a serious discussion, not one driven by politics.

The role of government is a conversation that we should have. We shouldn't have this discussion in the middle of a storm because the outcome would be lopsided in favor of FEMA. Congressman Ron Paul, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Grover Norquist are all on the same page on taxes and a goal of making government small enough where you can drown it in a bath tub. I imagine that those people cringe every time FEMA is applauded for helping people in dire need. It doesn’t help their cause when 67% of the people think that the top two should get taxed more in an effort not to put most of the burden on the old, disabled, elderly, and middle class. There is a lot a waste at all levels of government but that's no cause to throw the baby out with the bath water. I get a kick out of our locals arguing our tax rate in Victoria, especially when they try to impress without knowing the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate. I still think those people are just trying to muddy the waters because they hate taxes and government.

I know that Michelle Bachmann is behind the frontrunners but I just can't get over how people will use God in politics.  She said"“I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians,” Bachmann said to supporters. “We've had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here? Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending.' ”....  Do they know I stupid this sounds?  I imagine Ed Rollins (Bachmann's campaign manager) put the fear of  God in her , because now she is saying that she was just kidding. If we believe that God is the lone creator, why would God put so much emphasis on  United States(~310 million people) over the other six billion people?  Pat Robertson said the crack the Washington monument received from earthquake was a sign.

Remember you can hold you mouse cursor over any subject or person I mentioned  for more information.

Just a snippet of our Friday night newscast

I will admit that I don't know all the details of the case, but I heard a disturbing KAVU report, that an 18 year old boy was stopped for questioning, because he was walking on the wrong side of the road. The young man immediately took off, but was eventually caught and arrested for “walking on the wrong side of the road "and for running away from the police. I  understand that a policeman's instinct is a valuable tool, and it's not wise to run if you are innocent, but “walking on the wrong side of the road" is not that uncommon. I believe the police officer could have told the 18 year old to get over on the right side of the street, if it was that important. On the other side, if the individual would have been caught with contraband, was a runaway, or had outstanding warrants, it could have been seen as good police work. I hope is not a case of abuse of power.I think it's pretty safe to say that the kid's parents do not have enough money or influence or this case would not have seen the light of day.


The rest of the evening news was pretty good because I heard our mayor say that we will complete the Sam Houston project, downtown renovation, and repair the downtown water and sewer lines, even though he's being criticized for spending money during this economic downturn. He said what I've been saying all along, materials and interest rates are low right now and future monies will be coming in, when the construction of the Caterpillar is complete. He also said that Caterpillar was very impressed with the fact that we had built many new schools. That's a sort of " build it, they will come" mentality that we don't hear enough of, because people have been brain washed into thinking that you run a government like you do a household budget. The principle of not spending more than you take in is a valid one, but don't we all take out mortgages without fully knowing what lies ahead in the future?


It's sad that these politicians would rather shut down government than increase taxes on the rich. The state of Minnesota laid off more than 20,000 public employees, closed their state Parks, libraries, and will not fund their safety net programs. It's sadder that their former governor and current congresswoman are urging their republican state legislators to keep the government closed. Somehow this makes Tim Pawlenty and Michelle Bachmann standout in their quest for the presidency. Unfortunately, we have plenty of politicians in Washington that thinks it's cool to shut down government. We can expect to see more this now that the Supreme Court has passed the controversial” Citizens United” case where corporations are treated like individuals,thus  allowing them to spend as much undisclosed money as they want ,in influencing legislation and elections. Republican lawmakers have to sign a pledge for Grover Norquist, not to raise taxes under any circumstances and another one for the Koch brothers not to pass environmental laws. Michelle Bachmann recently criticized Mitt Romney for not signing an abortion pledge. The era of compromises over, because it’s all about the pledges and lobbyist money.

I just received an idea from Rusty Bucket's blog, so I will be working on that for a future blog.  There are people that just hate the Federal government and make no bones about it  Abe rewrote or copied a piece from some right wing site about the Fed arresting some Amish people for selling raw milk.  Of course, Observer  thought it was another NAZI move by our government.  Unpasteurized milk can make someone really sick.  It doesn't matter that some drank it as a child without any ill effects.  I've known people that ate undercooked hamburger meat without any ill effects, but I also remember my wife being admitted to the ER because she ate an undercooked Wendy's hamburger.  I guess it depends on the amount of the E coli a person absorbs.Am I wrong about this?

The weatherman said it's going to be hot, hot, and hot but why is that news? Hopefully, we get a rainstorm here and there. Enjoy your July 4th.

How much is too much government?

There are a lot of complaints about our country becoming a nanny state. The recent Supreme Court ruling that government can't ban the sell of violent video games to minors was pretty even, 80 agreed with the decision and 70 disagreed according to informal ViCad poll. They were three negative comments to our forum's question of the day" Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on violent video games?"

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against the state of California, but I agree with the dissenting summation written by Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the two dissenters in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, pointed out the court's double standard. "What sense does it make," he asked, "to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

What sense, indeed. Breyer went further: "What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured, and killed — is also topless?"

Another fine question. Breyer pointed out the inconsistency in order to defend the California law. He would have ruled that the video-game ban is constitutional — just as some laws against selling obscenity have been upheld.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2080289,00.html

I've seen a lot of comments saying that it's up to the parents to restrict, and I guess permit children what they can or can't watch. I’ve heard many times that there's too much government intrusion in our lives. I wonder if that's a blanket statement in restricting any more government laws? Ron Paul uses this reasoning for his objection to the civil rights laws. He said it was an intrusion on property rights. I guess Ron Paul and these posters are saying that parents and the free market will police itself. That's a good theory but is it based, in reality?

I don't have a barometer or a gauge to measure how much government we need, but I've come down on both sides because I take it on a case by case basis. I may not be against red light cameras, but I'm a strong opponent of the Patriot Act.

Hey this  is Texas, where they pass a “anti groping law” and then turn around and approve legislation that requires mothers seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of what it shows in the same legislative session.