My Southern roots, such as they are are rankled a bit by the talking heads needlessly ranting about the in process 150th year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the Southern Confederacy.
A little history. In all 11 states, by either popular vote and/or vote by legislature determined to secede form the Union. The basic legal justification was the Declaration of Independence of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. The general part of that declaration which was the basis for this belief is,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
President Lincoln did not accept this argument and raised 75,000 troops to regain control over those states who by popular acclamation chose to 'abolish and institute a new government'. By force of arms the United States invaded the Confederacy. As we all know, the Confederacy lost the war, which was not actually a declared war at all.
There are some questions which arise as a result of the defeat of the Confederacy. How is it that West Virginia can be a state if Constitutionally you cannot make a state from another? If Virginia did not secede as Lincoln stated, then West Virginia is illegal. Here though is the part I don't understand. If the states did not legally secede, then why did they have to be readmitted?
Slavery was not the primary reason for Southern Secession. States rights were and yes, they were coupled politically by slavery. There was a political imbalance which favored the non-slave states. Up until then, there had been balance between slave and free. The Supreme Court had ruled in Dred Scott that the Federal Government could not ban slavery in the western territories. As much as we find slavery a terrible thing today, back then everyone benefited from it. Northern industry relied on cheap Southern products to fashion into manufactured goods for sale domestically and foreign. Today we tolerate cheap labor in China and India and we feel no remorse since we benefit from cheaper goods at the detriment of our own industry. The domestic solution would be to eliminate the minimum wage and let US industry pay slave wages here.
Today we read and hear about states rights, Federal interference in states business. These were the same issues the Southern states faced in the 1850's. This was not just about slavery, it was also about the political imbalance between the industrialized north and the agricultural South. 90% of the rail system was in the north as well as manufacturing plants. The power brokers in the northeast were in control and wanted to be sure that the South stayed relatively poor. This was to their benefit to do so. The balance in the Senate was the only leverage the South had left. When the number of Free states out numbered the Slave states, the South was doomed. What choice did the Southern states have?
I am not here to re-fight the War between the states. There are many myths still floating about the Confederacy, mostly evil. Southernors are not evil by definition as many would have you believe. Racists are evil. Not all Southernors are racist, nor are most racists, Southernor's.
This is about Southern heritage, simple facts that there was another nation on this continent from 1861-1865, one which was destroyed by force of arms.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Here's an idea about forcing Americans to buy their own health insurance
The idea is very simple. If the mandatory purchase of personal insurance is struck down, it can be replaced by a simpler method to force compliance.
As it stands now, hospitals are compelled by law to treat EVERYONE who shows up whether they are insured or not. If this law were repealed it would mean that hospitals would have the 'option' to turn away those who are uninsured. This way the taxpayer would not have to pay for care that the individual refuses to pay for themselves. All of the other provisions can be kept in place to make insurance affordable for those who cannot afford it, but the choice and risk is the individual's. A responsible person would not take the risk, those who are not will be denied help. It's about time everyone takes responsibility for their own actions and not expect the government to bail them out.
As it stands now, hospitals are compelled by law to treat EVERYONE who shows up whether they are insured or not. If this law were repealed it would mean that hospitals would have the 'option' to turn away those who are uninsured. This way the taxpayer would not have to pay for care that the individual refuses to pay for themselves. All of the other provisions can be kept in place to make insurance affordable for those who cannot afford it, but the choice and risk is the individual's. A responsible person would not take the risk, those who are not will be denied help. It's about time everyone takes responsibility for their own actions and not expect the government to bail them out.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Crisis in Korea
This week, the the North Koreans attacked a a South Korean island with artillery fire, killing and injuring island residents and military personnel. The attack was reported as a response to the South Korean military exercises in the area. Four months ago, the North Koreans sank a South Korean frigate with a torpedo. In a short time, the nuclear aircraft carrier, George Washington will be entering the area for joint exercises with the South Koreans. North Korea claims this is an act of provocation. China is sitting on the sidelines not willing to put much pressure on North Korea, presumably to prevent the collapse of the North Korean government and the subsequent influx of refugees into China. This is an oversimplification of the situation as it is today.
China is of course the key to any resolution of the Korean situation. China supports the humanitarian effort to provide basic staples to North Korea, to maintain stability and prevent a pro-western government from being instituted in North Korea.
This begs the question, what leverage do we have with China to bring a peaceful end to the problem? Lets is revisit the economic reasons why China is the powerhouse she has become.
The following are excerpts from various sources to illustrate the history of China's rise.
The key is MFN, or most favoured nation trading status.
MFN/NTR status for China, a non-market economy, which had been originally suspended in 1951, was restored in 1980 and was continued in effect through subsequent annual Presidential extensions. Following the brutal suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, however, the annual renewal of China’s MFN status became a source of considerable debate in the Congress; and legislation was introduced to terminate China’s MFN/NTR status or to impose additional conditions relating to improvements in China’s actions on various trade and non-trade issues. Agricultural interests generally opposed attempts to block MFN /NTR renewal for China, contending that several billion dollars annually in current and future U.S. agricultural exports could be jeopardized if that country retaliated. In China’s case, Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status in P.L. 106-286, President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000.[2] PNTR paved the way for China’s accession to the WTO in December 2000; it provides U.S. exporters of agricultural products the opportunity to benefit from China’s WTO agreements to reduce trade barriers and open its agricultural markets.
China's trade policies have become a focal point in the annual congressional debate over renewing China's most-favored-nation trade status. Along with other non-trade issues, including but not limited to human rights violations, weapons sales, and foreign policy issues. Over the past several years, efforts have been made in Congress to terminate, or attach additional conditions to, China's most-favored-nation trade status, although none have as of yet succeeded. This policy was opposed by the Bush Administration, which sought to deal with these issues outside the most-favored-nation trade status process. As a result, President Bush vetoed congressional attempts to revoke or condition China's most-favored-nation trade status, and such vetoes were consistently sustained in the Senate. As a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton criticized the Bush Administration's China policy and pledged to take a tougher approach to United States-Chinese trade relations, including conditioning China's most-favored-nation trade status renewal. To date many of the very same issues that the United State objected to in the past are still going on every day in China.
Having granted MFN to China, we have created the trade imbalance we face today. If we revoke MFN, what would happen? Well, for one China will have difficulty maintaining their economic advantage they possess today with the US. Their exports will suffer and this could be construed as an affront to their national security, much the way the Japanese were treated by the US prior to WW2. One would think there would be a pragmatic solution here. I mean, is North Korea worth the economic crisis China would face? Is it such a bad thing to have a pro-western government on her borders given the fact that if it were not for the West, she would still be in the economic dark ages? Hong Kong was and still is clearly pro-western and there are few issues unresolved.
It's amazing to me that China would want to have a renegade, nuclear powered nation on it's borders. North Korea's nuclear ambitions should be taken seriously and quashed. It is clear that China is unwilling to take on North Korea, so they sit on the sidelines and play the waiting game, what they are waiting for is cause for speculation.
So what would I do?
First I would confront China and threaten them with revocation of MFN if they do not play ball with us. I would suggest to the Chinese that they send troops to their border with North Korea and set up a 'buffer zone' to collect refugees and provide them with temporary support until hostilities ended. The Chinese can use the ruse that they are sending troops to the border to help defend North Korea from attack. In the mean time, the US and South Koreans will launch a series of quick, surgical air strikes to take out command and control capability, coupled with a airborne assault on Pyongyang to take out the North Korean leadership. Once this is complete, capitulation of the North Korean armed forces would be a mere formality. The South Korean Army can enter North Korea without firing a shot, take over administration of North Korea and unify the country once and for all.
The benefits are obvious to all Americans. Our safety and security are assured. We can begin removing our troops from Korea and Japan as there will no longer be a threat to either country. Stability will be restored for the first time in centuries.
Of course, what do I know.
China is of course the key to any resolution of the Korean situation. China supports the humanitarian effort to provide basic staples to North Korea, to maintain stability and prevent a pro-western government from being instituted in North Korea.
This begs the question, what leverage do we have with China to bring a peaceful end to the problem? Lets is revisit the economic reasons why China is the powerhouse she has become.
The following are excerpts from various sources to illustrate the history of China's rise.
The key is MFN, or most favoured nation trading status.
MFN/NTR status for China, a non-market economy, which had been originally suspended in 1951, was restored in 1980 and was continued in effect through subsequent annual Presidential extensions. Following the brutal suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, however, the annual renewal of China’s MFN status became a source of considerable debate in the Congress; and legislation was introduced to terminate China’s MFN/NTR status or to impose additional conditions relating to improvements in China’s actions on various trade and non-trade issues. Agricultural interests generally opposed attempts to block MFN /NTR renewal for China, contending that several billion dollars annually in current and future U.S. agricultural exports could be jeopardized if that country retaliated. In China’s case, Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status in P.L. 106-286, President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000.[2] PNTR paved the way for China’s accession to the WTO in December 2000; it provides U.S. exporters of agricultural products the opportunity to benefit from China’s WTO agreements to reduce trade barriers and open its agricultural markets.
China's trade policies have become a focal point in the annual congressional debate over renewing China's most-favored-nation trade status. Along with other non-trade issues, including but not limited to human rights violations, weapons sales, and foreign policy issues. Over the past several years, efforts have been made in Congress to terminate, or attach additional conditions to, China's most-favored-nation trade status, although none have as of yet succeeded. This policy was opposed by the Bush Administration, which sought to deal with these issues outside the most-favored-nation trade status process. As a result, President Bush vetoed congressional attempts to revoke or condition China's most-favored-nation trade status, and such vetoes were consistently sustained in the Senate. As a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton criticized the Bush Administration's China policy and pledged to take a tougher approach to United States-Chinese trade relations, including conditioning China's most-favored-nation trade status renewal. To date many of the very same issues that the United State objected to in the past are still going on every day in China.
Having granted MFN to China, we have created the trade imbalance we face today. If we revoke MFN, what would happen? Well, for one China will have difficulty maintaining their economic advantage they possess today with the US. Their exports will suffer and this could be construed as an affront to their national security, much the way the Japanese were treated by the US prior to WW2. One would think there would be a pragmatic solution here. I mean, is North Korea worth the economic crisis China would face? Is it such a bad thing to have a pro-western government on her borders given the fact that if it were not for the West, she would still be in the economic dark ages? Hong Kong was and still is clearly pro-western and there are few issues unresolved.
It's amazing to me that China would want to have a renegade, nuclear powered nation on it's borders. North Korea's nuclear ambitions should be taken seriously and quashed. It is clear that China is unwilling to take on North Korea, so they sit on the sidelines and play the waiting game, what they are waiting for is cause for speculation.
So what would I do?
First I would confront China and threaten them with revocation of MFN if they do not play ball with us. I would suggest to the Chinese that they send troops to their border with North Korea and set up a 'buffer zone' to collect refugees and provide them with temporary support until hostilities ended. The Chinese can use the ruse that they are sending troops to the border to help defend North Korea from attack. In the mean time, the US and South Koreans will launch a series of quick, surgical air strikes to take out command and control capability, coupled with a airborne assault on Pyongyang to take out the North Korean leadership. Once this is complete, capitulation of the North Korean armed forces would be a mere formality. The South Korean Army can enter North Korea without firing a shot, take over administration of North Korea and unify the country once and for all.
The benefits are obvious to all Americans. Our safety and security are assured. We can begin removing our troops from Korea and Japan as there will no longer be a threat to either country. Stability will be restored for the first time in centuries.
Of course, what do I know.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Election Day 2010, A Silver Lining?
The 2004 Presidential election baffled not only me but the rest of the world as well, the only people who weren't were Americans. How can you explain 68 million people re-electing a man who by every standard should have been denied a second term because of his invasion of Iraq after manipulating the American people into believing this was a just war. Remember, Congress did not declare war, the President used the War Powers Act to invade Iraq.
Watching the Rachel Maddow show last week from Alaska vindicated my opinion that we really are a nation of fools and idiots, at least those Americans who are pushing the Tea Bag agenda. There were several people holding up Joe Miller signs, asking people to get out to vote in Anchorage. Joe Miller is the Republican nominee for Senate from Alaska. Mr. Miller is also a Tea Bagger. Mr. Miller has admitted that throughout his career as an attorney, specifically the Borough of Fairbanks, he used borough computers for personal use and tried to cover his tracks. These are minor issues, but it should go to the character of this man. Apparently not in Alaska. Two of the people holding signs were asked a simple question, "Why are you supporting Joe Miller?". The one response totally floored me. The respondent said he was against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US. He said that Mr. Holder and the Obama Administration wanted to take away their guns. When pressed, he went on to add that through out his political career Mr. Holder has voted for gun controls. When the respondent was told that Mr. Holder has never held political office, the respondent finally admitted he knew nothing about Mr. Holder and the issue of taking away gun rights. Now, not only did the man not have ANY facts correct, he also failed to appreciate the fact that a vote for or against Mr. Miller would have no impact on his second amendment rights. What could any politician do with regards to an issue such as this? The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the most LIBERAL interpretation of the right to bear arms, the point is moot. Let me put it another way, the right to carry a loaded weapon into your local bar is NOT a Federal issue, it is a state or local issue, states decide if it is appropriate, not the Federal government. So, lets go back to the question for this placard bearer, the relevance of the question alone is non-existent. The problem is, this man actually believes this nonsense and by his own admission did no research on the subject, he just accepted a lie as fact.
Joe Miller was asked by Rachel what his stand on abortion was. Miller was clearly uneasy with the question. His answer essentially was if there was a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, he would support it. Of course 75% of the states would also have to agree. Again, abortion is NOT a national issue, it's a state's right to regulate and allow or disallow abortions. The Federal issue is if available to a woman, she can, depending on the state she lives in, be allowed to make that choice. If abortion is illegal in your state, Roe v. Wade does not apply. Asking a national candidate that kind of question is also irrelevant. If I were running for national office, my answer would be similar to the President's. Personally I am against abortion, but the right to choose is the law of the land. No man can make that decision for a woman. Only women have that special right, so my opinion carries no weight. Oh yes, the lie that Mr. Obama is for abortion is just that, a lie. Mr. Obama, through his Attorney General MUST comply with the law of the land, regardless of their personal opinion. Mr. Obama does not support abortion. Keep in mind, the right to choose is not the same as abortion being legal or illegal. Tea Baggers and their Republican cohorts holler about smaller government and keeping Federal government out of our personal lives, yet in this case they want MORE intrusion into our lives.
Intrusion into our personal lives is one of the battle cries of the Tea Bag/Republican party by the Federal government. Funny, you don't hear about the individual states infringing on our daily lies, yet that intrusion is more invasive. What kind of Federal intrusions into our daily lives, the rules and laws which are in place today that we really take issue with? Can you name one negative intrusion? I cannot. I can cite a few new rules/laws just in the past 2 years which will make our lives better. How about regulating the banking industry, to stop them from jacking up your credit card rates without proper notifications? What about compelling the banks to maintain a higher cash level in reserve to cover potential losses? What about a Consumer Protection Agency? What about preventing insurance companies from denying medical coverage because of a pre-existing condition or lifetime caps on benefits? Now, these are but tiny snippets of what has been accomplished in 2 years. You must ask the question, why do we need these things? We need them because when left to their own devices, business and industry will do whatever they can to cut corners and make a profit at all costs, in any way their legally can. Why do we have EPA? Because companies were dumping toxic wastes in rivers and streams and lakes, polluting the air we breathe with thousands of belching smokestacks because there were either no rules or no enforcement possible. Over time, US companies decided to build plants offshore to get around EPA and US laws. The results at times have been devastating, Bhopal, India comes to mind, Union Carbide owned the plant and in 1984 a gas leak developed killing 2300-15,000 people.
My Point, "It emerged in 1998, during civil action suits in India, that, unlike Union Carbide plants in the US, its Indian subsidiary plants were not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal."
Today, the new country we run to is China. Again, few regulations and an opportunity to maximize profits at the expense of the environment and people. Do I really have to remind you of the lead based paints or cadmium in jewelry coming from China? What would happen if we did not have the Consumer Product Safety folks?
The Tea Baggers want to do away with all of this. They believe we are all responsible people and don't need to be regulated or controlled. I mean, no one runs stops signs or speeds or cheats on their taxes, right? We can be trusted to ALWAYS do the right thing.
Lets go to another Tea Bag/Republican rant. Deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. Privatizing Social Security is one subject. In Colorado, the Tea Bagger is ranting on the Democrat nominee in an ad claiming that when faced with budget shortfalls, he invested money in 'risky wall street ventures'. Generally speaking, states must balance their budgets one way or another. Usually this includes issuing bonds, which lately have been flat. I don't know what the result of these risky wall street ventures are. What I do know is it seems hypocritical for a Tea Bagger/Republican to lash out at a Democrat for doing EXACTLY what the Tea Bag/Republicans want to do. They want to take the Social Security money and invest it in Wall Street thinking Social Security will reap a greater benefit. Well, that is fine if the market is stable. Just ask those who lost 90% of the value of their 401K's when the market slid how well it works. Your monthly benefit could go up OR go down depending on market fluctuations. My guess is that it won't go up as much as the market because there are predators out there to skim off the top, but if the market drops, you lose your ass. Oh, that's right Wall Street types can always be trusted because they will have fewer regulations because the are honorable people.Do you really think Hedge Fund Managers who make billions in one year would not be licking their chops? Not if the Tea Baggers are to be believed. No one runs a stop sign, do they.
Balancing the budget, now this one is very interesting. Tea Bag/Republicans want to balance the budget. Ummm....10 years ago when they swept in after the Clinton presidency, the budget was not only balanced, but had a surplus. So what happened? Three things. The Republicans went on a spending spree and to make matters worse came up with temporary tax cuts for the wealthy AND created the unfunded Part D Medicare program, Drugs. The tax cuts cost $2 trillion, the Part D?, Though not made public until 2004, the CMS's 2003 estimate was $534 billion for the period 2004 to 2013. In CMS's February 2005 estimate, the 10-year price tag of the drug provision is $724 billion for the period 2006 to 2015.
Untax and spend. The 8 Bush budgets totaled -$3.418 Trillion in deficit spending. The previous 8 years totaled -$321 Billion. The final Clinton budget surplus in 2000 was $230 billion. Ok..lets do some real quick math. Had Bush's crowd maintained the status quo and we extrapolate the final $230B surplus 8 years out and then deduct the cost of Part D (which was unfunded), when Mr. Obama took office our Federal debt would have been REDUCED by $1.306 TRILLION !!! This is a swing of $4.724 Trillion !!! The other silver lining, all things being equal...8 million of the 23 million jobs gained during the Clinton years would have been saved. Based upon these FACTS and my theorizing, all things being equal, would we be in the mess we are in today? The Tea Baggers want to add another $2 Trillion to the debt by keeping the Bush tax cuts which were so devastating to our economy without ANY offsets. Where do you find $2 trillion in offsets and also balance the budget at the same time? It would take 20 years of surpluses just to recover the $4.724 we lost due to the Bush/Republican policies, again..all things being equal. Tea Baggers would have us believe that extending the tax cuts is a job killer. Well, since the tax cuts we have LOST 8 million jobs. The 8 years prior to the tax cuts, 23 million jobs were created. These are the facts, check them out.
In the heading, I have suggested a silver lining in all of this. Yes, we are lemmings. We are a stupid, little people with a very short attention span. The next 2 years, under Tea Bag/Republican control, the House will demonstrate how incompetent they are to govern. Any repeal of any Obama administration will be met with a veto. Tea Baggers will fight more with the Republican establishment and eventually be absorbed and rendered ineffective by the time their terms are up in 2012 thus guaranteeing Mr. Obama's second term. Mr. Obama is a smart man and he knows that the policies he already has in place will turn this mess around without the help of the Tea Baggers or Republicans. The Republicans have gone on record that their number one priority is to destroy the Obama presidency. How un-American is that? We elect these people to work for US, not to focus on destroying a presidency. This in NOT governing, it's petty and treasonous. Our system of government was designed to compel all to work together with checks and balances. There is nothing written that it is the right of one branch to destroy the other, in fact just the opposite.
Second Amendment solution? We are not a Third World country are we? We are a civilized society and to suggest, quite clearly that if the government does not do the bidding of the Tea Baggers, they reserve the option of a Second Amendment solution. We are not Pakistan or India where they shoot their leaders, are we? On the other hand, maybe we are. Look what happened in Kentucky and Alaska. Private security detaining a journalist because he wanted to ask a question of a Tea Bag candidate. Rand Paul's goons attacked a woman, stomped her on the head, sending her to hospital with a concussion. Glen Beck said that we have to fear Democrats and their violence.
All we have to do is look to history on this planet to find examples of the potential danger of the Tea Baggers. Let us revisit the Wiemar Republic after The Great War. Germany was under crushing debt, war reparations, the French. Unemployment was out of control, the country was disintegrating. Through this time a former Corporal and paper hanger emerged as the hope for a new Germany. He struggled in the beginning, spending time in Landsburg Prison where he wrote My Struggle, a book which after it was published actually outsold the Holy Bible. His goal was to restore Germany to her rightful place as the economic and military power house of Europe. From the beginning at beer halls and ending at mass rallies at Nuremberg. His was a grassroots effort to change Germany forever. He started small, but intelligently. National Socialists did not take over the government in a 2nd Amendment fashion, they did it legally, through elections. This is not to say that violence and intimidation were not used to facilitate certain gains, but in the end, they were elected by the masses. The ultimate goal of becoming Chancellor of Germany came by way of negotiating with the business powerhouses of Germany. Not unlike the Republicorp branding Moveon.org has come up with. With business leaders behind him, Hitler could now become the leader Germany wanted. Von Hindenburg gave in and appointed him Chancellor. The pieces were now in place. 2nd Amendment remedies were now used to maintain control and quell any opposition, starting with the brown shirts who helped putting him in power. His first order of business was to keep his promises, within two years unemployment dropped to nearly zero. The Ruhr was retaken and industry awakened. Massive government programs to build a new Germany started. The economy stabilized. Hitler's philosophy was always, the German people would gladly give up some rights to gain safety, security, employment and a stable government. We must be wary of such politicians. Thankfully in our system, it is highly unlikely that this sort of drastic political change can take place, but it could happen if the Tea Baggers are able to make greater inroads. Change like this will not happen overnight, it would be long and insidious. Like any avalanche, once it starts, it's nearly impossible to stop.
Tenthers. Tenthers would have you believe that states rights are being infringed upon by the Federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in EVERY single case against the states. Why? It's very simple and the Tea Baggers just don't get it. It is true that under the Constitution the Federal government cannot compel the states to do certain things, except for one minor detail, which seems to have gotten lost along with the truth. If you as a state accept Federal money for anything, the Federal government can withhold those funds if you do not do what you are told to do. This is LEGAL according to the Supreme Court. The answer is VERY SIMPLE. All the state has to do is ask their Congressional delegates and Senators to add an amendment to any funding bill which excludes their state. This way the Feds have nothing to hold over you. If you have a natural disaster, don't ask for Federal money. If you want to rebuild your infrastructure, don't ask for Federal help. After all, as I recall as a condition of receiving Federal highway or infrastructure monies, the states must pay to maintain those things. The reality is, the states don't in all cases. If you don't want money for education or school lunch programs, don't accept it. The whining is tantamount to biting the hand that feeds you.
Education. Funny. Not only does education make us more competitive, it also makes us a smart people and smart people don't vote Tea Bag or Republican. Enough said.
Jobs. Who in the hell decided that the government is responsible for job creation? The only jobs the government creates is in support of government. The vast majority of business does not have government contracts. The one's that do don't want any funding cuts from the Federal government. The government can influence by job creating in the private sector by giving tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. My feeling is that if you as a business want a tax break by shipping jobs overseas, then do it on a level playing field. I would have no problem with a condition to that tax break such as these. To collect the tax break, you must pay foreign based employees a fair market US wage. You would have to collect Social Security taxes and Federal withholding. These taxes would be collected by American employees to benefit Americans. By compelling offshore employers to pay the same as here does two things, it will provide foreign derived Federal income to help offset the unemployment costs and re-education costs because of the transfer of employment overseas.
In closing, the electorate is going to find out quickly that by electing these nut jobs, the power they will yield will be nothing compared to those they replaced. The Senate and House operate on a seniority basis and if you think these new folk are going to be able to bring home the bacon their predecessors did, they have another thing coming. Harry Reid is a perfect example. By losing him and his power, the state of Nevada will fall into oblivion on a national basis. Anything special he could have provided by virtue of his standing will be gone. Harry Reid could have saved Nevada, Engle will lead it to it's mediocrity and if that is what Nevadans want, then so be it.
Watching the Rachel Maddow show last week from Alaska vindicated my opinion that we really are a nation of fools and idiots, at least those Americans who are pushing the Tea Bag agenda. There were several people holding up Joe Miller signs, asking people to get out to vote in Anchorage. Joe Miller is the Republican nominee for Senate from Alaska. Mr. Miller is also a Tea Bagger. Mr. Miller has admitted that throughout his career as an attorney, specifically the Borough of Fairbanks, he used borough computers for personal use and tried to cover his tracks. These are minor issues, but it should go to the character of this man. Apparently not in Alaska. Two of the people holding signs were asked a simple question, "Why are you supporting Joe Miller?". The one response totally floored me. The respondent said he was against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US. He said that Mr. Holder and the Obama Administration wanted to take away their guns. When pressed, he went on to add that through out his political career Mr. Holder has voted for gun controls. When the respondent was told that Mr. Holder has never held political office, the respondent finally admitted he knew nothing about Mr. Holder and the issue of taking away gun rights. Now, not only did the man not have ANY facts correct, he also failed to appreciate the fact that a vote for or against Mr. Miller would have no impact on his second amendment rights. What could any politician do with regards to an issue such as this? The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the most LIBERAL interpretation of the right to bear arms, the point is moot. Let me put it another way, the right to carry a loaded weapon into your local bar is NOT a Federal issue, it is a state or local issue, states decide if it is appropriate, not the Federal government. So, lets go back to the question for this placard bearer, the relevance of the question alone is non-existent. The problem is, this man actually believes this nonsense and by his own admission did no research on the subject, he just accepted a lie as fact.
Joe Miller was asked by Rachel what his stand on abortion was. Miller was clearly uneasy with the question. His answer essentially was if there was a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, he would support it. Of course 75% of the states would also have to agree. Again, abortion is NOT a national issue, it's a state's right to regulate and allow or disallow abortions. The Federal issue is if available to a woman, she can, depending on the state she lives in, be allowed to make that choice. If abortion is illegal in your state, Roe v. Wade does not apply. Asking a national candidate that kind of question is also irrelevant. If I were running for national office, my answer would be similar to the President's. Personally I am against abortion, but the right to choose is the law of the land. No man can make that decision for a woman. Only women have that special right, so my opinion carries no weight. Oh yes, the lie that Mr. Obama is for abortion is just that, a lie. Mr. Obama, through his Attorney General MUST comply with the law of the land, regardless of their personal opinion. Mr. Obama does not support abortion. Keep in mind, the right to choose is not the same as abortion being legal or illegal. Tea Baggers and their Republican cohorts holler about smaller government and keeping Federal government out of our personal lives, yet in this case they want MORE intrusion into our lives.
Intrusion into our personal lives is one of the battle cries of the Tea Bag/Republican party by the Federal government. Funny, you don't hear about the individual states infringing on our daily lies, yet that intrusion is more invasive. What kind of Federal intrusions into our daily lives, the rules and laws which are in place today that we really take issue with? Can you name one negative intrusion? I cannot. I can cite a few new rules/laws just in the past 2 years which will make our lives better. How about regulating the banking industry, to stop them from jacking up your credit card rates without proper notifications? What about compelling the banks to maintain a higher cash level in reserve to cover potential losses? What about a Consumer Protection Agency? What about preventing insurance companies from denying medical coverage because of a pre-existing condition or lifetime caps on benefits? Now, these are but tiny snippets of what has been accomplished in 2 years. You must ask the question, why do we need these things? We need them because when left to their own devices, business and industry will do whatever they can to cut corners and make a profit at all costs, in any way their legally can. Why do we have EPA? Because companies were dumping toxic wastes in rivers and streams and lakes, polluting the air we breathe with thousands of belching smokestacks because there were either no rules or no enforcement possible. Over time, US companies decided to build plants offshore to get around EPA and US laws. The results at times have been devastating, Bhopal, India comes to mind, Union Carbide owned the plant and in 1984 a gas leak developed killing 2300-15,000 people.
My Point, "It emerged in 1998, during civil action suits in India, that, unlike Union Carbide plants in the US, its Indian subsidiary plants were not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal."
Today, the new country we run to is China. Again, few regulations and an opportunity to maximize profits at the expense of the environment and people. Do I really have to remind you of the lead based paints or cadmium in jewelry coming from China? What would happen if we did not have the Consumer Product Safety folks?
The Tea Baggers want to do away with all of this. They believe we are all responsible people and don't need to be regulated or controlled. I mean, no one runs stops signs or speeds or cheats on their taxes, right? We can be trusted to ALWAYS do the right thing.
Lets go to another Tea Bag/Republican rant. Deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. Privatizing Social Security is one subject. In Colorado, the Tea Bagger is ranting on the Democrat nominee in an ad claiming that when faced with budget shortfalls, he invested money in 'risky wall street ventures'. Generally speaking, states must balance their budgets one way or another. Usually this includes issuing bonds, which lately have been flat. I don't know what the result of these risky wall street ventures are. What I do know is it seems hypocritical for a Tea Bagger/Republican to lash out at a Democrat for doing EXACTLY what the Tea Bag/Republicans want to do. They want to take the Social Security money and invest it in Wall Street thinking Social Security will reap a greater benefit. Well, that is fine if the market is stable. Just ask those who lost 90% of the value of their 401K's when the market slid how well it works. Your monthly benefit could go up OR go down depending on market fluctuations. My guess is that it won't go up as much as the market because there are predators out there to skim off the top, but if the market drops, you lose your ass. Oh, that's right Wall Street types can always be trusted because they will have fewer regulations because the are honorable people.Do you really think Hedge Fund Managers who make billions in one year would not be licking their chops? Not if the Tea Baggers are to be believed. No one runs a stop sign, do they.
Balancing the budget, now this one is very interesting. Tea Bag/Republicans want to balance the budget. Ummm....10 years ago when they swept in after the Clinton presidency, the budget was not only balanced, but had a surplus. So what happened? Three things. The Republicans went on a spending spree and to make matters worse came up with temporary tax cuts for the wealthy AND created the unfunded Part D Medicare program, Drugs. The tax cuts cost $2 trillion, the Part D?, Though not made public until 2004, the CMS's 2003 estimate was $534 billion for the period 2004 to 2013. In CMS's February 2005 estimate, the 10-year price tag of the drug provision is $724 billion for the period 2006 to 2015.
Untax and spend. The 8 Bush budgets totaled -$3.418 Trillion in deficit spending. The previous 8 years totaled -$321 Billion. The final Clinton budget surplus in 2000 was $230 billion. Ok..lets do some real quick math. Had Bush's crowd maintained the status quo and we extrapolate the final $230B surplus 8 years out and then deduct the cost of Part D (which was unfunded), when Mr. Obama took office our Federal debt would have been REDUCED by $1.306 TRILLION !!! This is a swing of $4.724 Trillion !!! The other silver lining, all things being equal...8 million of the 23 million jobs gained during the Clinton years would have been saved. Based upon these FACTS and my theorizing, all things being equal, would we be in the mess we are in today? The Tea Baggers want to add another $2 Trillion to the debt by keeping the Bush tax cuts which were so devastating to our economy without ANY offsets. Where do you find $2 trillion in offsets and also balance the budget at the same time? It would take 20 years of surpluses just to recover the $4.724 we lost due to the Bush/Republican policies, again..all things being equal. Tea Baggers would have us believe that extending the tax cuts is a job killer. Well, since the tax cuts we have LOST 8 million jobs. The 8 years prior to the tax cuts, 23 million jobs were created. These are the facts, check them out.
In the heading, I have suggested a silver lining in all of this. Yes, we are lemmings. We are a stupid, little people with a very short attention span. The next 2 years, under Tea Bag/Republican control, the House will demonstrate how incompetent they are to govern. Any repeal of any Obama administration will be met with a veto. Tea Baggers will fight more with the Republican establishment and eventually be absorbed and rendered ineffective by the time their terms are up in 2012 thus guaranteeing Mr. Obama's second term. Mr. Obama is a smart man and he knows that the policies he already has in place will turn this mess around without the help of the Tea Baggers or Republicans. The Republicans have gone on record that their number one priority is to destroy the Obama presidency. How un-American is that? We elect these people to work for US, not to focus on destroying a presidency. This in NOT governing, it's petty and treasonous. Our system of government was designed to compel all to work together with checks and balances. There is nothing written that it is the right of one branch to destroy the other, in fact just the opposite.
Second Amendment solution? We are not a Third World country are we? We are a civilized society and to suggest, quite clearly that if the government does not do the bidding of the Tea Baggers, they reserve the option of a Second Amendment solution. We are not Pakistan or India where they shoot their leaders, are we? On the other hand, maybe we are. Look what happened in Kentucky and Alaska. Private security detaining a journalist because he wanted to ask a question of a Tea Bag candidate. Rand Paul's goons attacked a woman, stomped her on the head, sending her to hospital with a concussion. Glen Beck said that we have to fear Democrats and their violence.
All we have to do is look to history on this planet to find examples of the potential danger of the Tea Baggers. Let us revisit the Wiemar Republic after The Great War. Germany was under crushing debt, war reparations, the French. Unemployment was out of control, the country was disintegrating. Through this time a former Corporal and paper hanger emerged as the hope for a new Germany. He struggled in the beginning, spending time in Landsburg Prison where he wrote My Struggle, a book which after it was published actually outsold the Holy Bible. His goal was to restore Germany to her rightful place as the economic and military power house of Europe. From the beginning at beer halls and ending at mass rallies at Nuremberg. His was a grassroots effort to change Germany forever. He started small, but intelligently. National Socialists did not take over the government in a 2nd Amendment fashion, they did it legally, through elections. This is not to say that violence and intimidation were not used to facilitate certain gains, but in the end, they were elected by the masses. The ultimate goal of becoming Chancellor of Germany came by way of negotiating with the business powerhouses of Germany. Not unlike the Republicorp branding Moveon.org has come up with. With business leaders behind him, Hitler could now become the leader Germany wanted. Von Hindenburg gave in and appointed him Chancellor. The pieces were now in place. 2nd Amendment remedies were now used to maintain control and quell any opposition, starting with the brown shirts who helped putting him in power. His first order of business was to keep his promises, within two years unemployment dropped to nearly zero. The Ruhr was retaken and industry awakened. Massive government programs to build a new Germany started. The economy stabilized. Hitler's philosophy was always, the German people would gladly give up some rights to gain safety, security, employment and a stable government. We must be wary of such politicians. Thankfully in our system, it is highly unlikely that this sort of drastic political change can take place, but it could happen if the Tea Baggers are able to make greater inroads. Change like this will not happen overnight, it would be long and insidious. Like any avalanche, once it starts, it's nearly impossible to stop.
Tenthers. Tenthers would have you believe that states rights are being infringed upon by the Federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in EVERY single case against the states. Why? It's very simple and the Tea Baggers just don't get it. It is true that under the Constitution the Federal government cannot compel the states to do certain things, except for one minor detail, which seems to have gotten lost along with the truth. If you as a state accept Federal money for anything, the Federal government can withhold those funds if you do not do what you are told to do. This is LEGAL according to the Supreme Court. The answer is VERY SIMPLE. All the state has to do is ask their Congressional delegates and Senators to add an amendment to any funding bill which excludes their state. This way the Feds have nothing to hold over you. If you have a natural disaster, don't ask for Federal money. If you want to rebuild your infrastructure, don't ask for Federal help. After all, as I recall as a condition of receiving Federal highway or infrastructure monies, the states must pay to maintain those things. The reality is, the states don't in all cases. If you don't want money for education or school lunch programs, don't accept it. The whining is tantamount to biting the hand that feeds you.
Education. Funny. Not only does education make us more competitive, it also makes us a smart people and smart people don't vote Tea Bag or Republican. Enough said.
Jobs. Who in the hell decided that the government is responsible for job creation? The only jobs the government creates is in support of government. The vast majority of business does not have government contracts. The one's that do don't want any funding cuts from the Federal government. The government can influence by job creating in the private sector by giving tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. My feeling is that if you as a business want a tax break by shipping jobs overseas, then do it on a level playing field. I would have no problem with a condition to that tax break such as these. To collect the tax break, you must pay foreign based employees a fair market US wage. You would have to collect Social Security taxes and Federal withholding. These taxes would be collected by American employees to benefit Americans. By compelling offshore employers to pay the same as here does two things, it will provide foreign derived Federal income to help offset the unemployment costs and re-education costs because of the transfer of employment overseas.
In closing, the electorate is going to find out quickly that by electing these nut jobs, the power they will yield will be nothing compared to those they replaced. The Senate and House operate on a seniority basis and if you think these new folk are going to be able to bring home the bacon their predecessors did, they have another thing coming. Harry Reid is a perfect example. By losing him and his power, the state of Nevada will fall into oblivion on a national basis. Anything special he could have provided by virtue of his standing will be gone. Harry Reid could have saved Nevada, Engle will lead it to it's mediocrity and if that is what Nevadans want, then so be it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)