Secession and Nullification

Chris Matthews and MSNBC is on a rant again regarding secession and nullification. This is getting old. The Civil War was fought between 1861 and 1865. Revisionists would have you believe that this war was fought specifically over the issue of slavery. The latest trigger point was the Sesquicentennial Celebration in South Carolina being held. Negro groups and left wing media are screaming about how disgraceful celebrating a political act instituted by the South Carolina Legislature and 6 other Southern States. Disgraceful? So should we also consider celebrating the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain as disgraceful? Of course not. Both were political acts, both instituted by legal bodies and for essentially similar reasons. The parliament in England was dictating policy and law from London even with a colonial representative. The guiding force in London was for the glory of the empire, the rights of the colonials were of secondary importance. The southern states felt then that they were being pushed around by Washington and their needs and right were being neglected. As long as there was balance in the Senate, the southern states were content. Have we forgotten the Missouri Compromise? For every free state entering the Union, there would be a slave state. There was balance. The states decided if they wanted to be free or slave. Keep in mind, until the amended 13th Amendment was approved in December 1865. Did I say amended? Yes I did.

What was the original 13th Amendment signed by President Buchanan and later approved of by Abraham Lincoln in his inaugural address in 1861?

"The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.[23] This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Southern states not to secede from the Union."

"Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referenced the Corwin Amendment: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."".

Even Abraham Lincoln approved of a constitutional amendment to forbid abolishment of slavery in the United States, he said so himself to the nation!! Lincoln was a gradualist, he believed as the South did, it was only a matter of time before slavery died on it's own.

Now, lets look at the numbers. It take, by the constitution 60% of the states to approve such amendment, 3 NORTHERN states had already approved it. Take the 11 Southern states which seceded that would bring the number to 14 states. There were as of 1860, 33 states. 20 would be needed for ratification, so only 6 more would be needed. Now, given the fact that slave labor meant that raw materials, such as cotton made US made items competitive, it is not beyond the realm of possibility the manufacturing states would have voted for the amendment, in fact to keep Negroes in the South would have been yet another reason to vote for it. Before the matter could be taken up by the other Northern states, the Civil War had begun.

Anyway, to suggest that slavery was the ONLY issue seems to be a red herring since there was a constitutional amendment on the table and only 6 more votes would be needed to ratify. Believe it or not, that amendment is still considered pending and could be approved.

Now, lets take a look at slavery in itself until December 1865. Whether we want to admit it or not, slavery was legal in the United States. Slaves were an asset, a piece of property, owned by a slave owner. Think of a slave as a car, you put gas in the tank, air in the tires, wash and wax it. They were not considered by anyone at the time as human beings, from a practical standpoint. The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic plan to foster a slave revolt in the South. It also denied slave owners due process for compensation for their loss of property. Imagine today the Federal government seizing your home or property and just giving it away without compensation. There would be such an uproar, possibly rebellion.

The end of the Civil War brought an Army of Occupation into the Southern states. Not only did the South lose the war, but they were subjected to an army of occupation, military control of their lives. Their homes destroyed, property seized by legal and illegal means. For 10 years the South suffered the indignation of being an occupied land. Everything they fought for, states rights was destroyed. Millions of Negroes were free to roam the countryside, North and South. Homeless and jobless they were, just as the whites who were left alive. The Federal government crammed the Negro down the throats of all of America, promising 40 acres and a mule. So here you have it, a war which was lost, an army of occupation, homes lost a way of living destroyed and who was promised 40 acres and a mule? Is it any wonder, given the times that there would not be some sort of backlash?

Lets fast forward to today for a moment. To illustrate my point as to relevance, look at the immigration debate regarding illegals. Do we not take issue with illegals taking over our jobs, even though we would not be caught dead doing them? These illegals are taking resources only Americans should have. There is a belief that they get free medical care, food stamps and welfare. Their children infest our schools for free..the list goes on and on. Now, given the situation today, is it so far fetched to believe that the South and the North felt the same way? Of course they did. The record is clear on this point. I wonder, had the North lost the war and was occupied by the Confederate Army, there would not have been backlash as well. My guess is that there would have not been such a thing. The South was never interested in occupying the North, they just wanted to be left alone.

So, had the 13th Amendment been approved and had the South not seceded, what then? Would we have a Negro President today? Would we have Civil Rights? With all the bloodshed of patriots on both sides, maybe in the long run it was worth it.

As for secession. I has been said that the issue of secession was settled on the battlefield, not in the courts. This is only half true. How can secession be illegal if there is no law against it? The constitution refers to creating and allowing states in, not the reverse.

As I recall, the 10th Amendment covers this issue, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". In other words, any power not specifically delegated by the constitution belongs to the states. There is no power to allow for secession or disallow it, therefore secession should be legal.

A later court ruling after the Civil War states this regarding secession in Texas v. White, "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.". This case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869. Apparently there are two legal means for a state to leave the Union, one is by revolution (interesting choice of words) or consent of the states, which may suggest a reverse dissolution of admittance to the union. So this means that had the Southern states declared their own independence, much like the American Declaration of Independence, it would have been legal? Methinks it's a matter of semantics.

As for states rights? Abraham Lincoln ordered Federal troops to Annapolis, MD to prevent Maryland from voting for secession. Illinois, Lincoln's adopted state (he was from Kentucky), by one vote almost voted for secession.

The rationale of states rights is not the same as it was back then. Today with so much Federal money flowing into the states, the Feds keep them in line, compelling them to adopt laws and regulations in line with Federal law or they threaten to cut off the money to that state. The answer to this dilemma is simple, stop taking the money. No, railing against Federal interference makes for great political theater. The states want the money without any rules or regulations. Some states want the Feds to write them a blank check without any strings attached. That will never happen.

It's like raising a teenager who complains about the rules of the house or a curfew, or who can be their friends. You tell them, when you are living under my roof, you do what I say. When you go out on your own, you can do whatever you want.

I say, if any state wants to leave, leave. Lets stop this nonsense about slavery and civil rights. We cannot go back. So lets move forward. If you want to go it alone, then go, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Earmarks for Alaska

Please understand, I have nothing against Alaska. I like Alaska, have been there several times. What I cannot begin to understand is why there is ANY Federal money heading to Alaska for ANY reason. Last year, $2.1B was allocated and spent by the state of Alaska for Federally supported programs. Just this week, another $26M in earmarks were included in the Omnibus spending bill before the US Senate. Sen. McCain tweeted about just one of the earmarks, but that just scratched the surface. He whined about $2M for a ferry landing at Port Lion, AK. I did some checking. Virtually all of the earmarks are geared towards the native Alaskan groups in Alaska. Which might suggest a racial bias in Alaska. The state won't fund these projects, so the Federal government has to.

Here are some facts. The state of Alaska has in their 'slush' fund $36B collecting interest. The state of Alaska just announced a dividend to every Alaska citizen of $1,281.00 for an individual, $5,405.00 for a family of five for 2010, a total of approximately $819M. That is for ONE YEAR. Alaskans pay virtually no sales tax.

Now, explain to me why the $26M could not be taken from the slush fund or deducted from the $819M dividend.

I can understand if a state does not have the financial resources to take care of their own people and infrastructure that the Federal government steps in and helps out, but clearly the state of Alaska can afford to take care of their own.

Am I missing something?

Republican Tax Breaks for the wealthy?

Okay, someone explain this to me in simple terms. When the Repubs were asked to vote for extending unemployment bennies, they said NO, not unless there were offsets, in other words, they had to be paid for without affecting the deficit. The Repubs ranted on about the stimulus law, that it increased the deficit and would produce NO new jobs. Well, it did create or save millions of jobs, clearly it worked, but still the issue of the increased deficit is what they ran on before the last election. Repubs promised to fight for spending reductions and lower taxes to match. When given the opportunity to partially resolve the tax and spend issues with PayGo, which 7 Repub Senators co-sponsored, those 7 Senators would not vote for their own bill. I have heard NOTHING from the Tea Baggers on this latest debacle. Now the Repubs are signing off on tax breaks for not only those making less than $250K in PERSONAL, not corporate income, but for those who fared very well with the tax breaks for the uber wealthy. What makes no sense is this. If they would not sign off unemployment bennies without offsets, why is it okay now? They would not sign off on any spending without offsets, yet now they are willing to do so to the tune of $700B over the next 2 years! This $700B adds to the deficit they want to reduce. A deficit they blamed Mr. Obama for and now they are willing to add to it. I am totally confused. How can you run an election on reducing the deficit, to reduce spending and to have offsets and then turn around and do exactly what they blames the Dems for? They railed against the bank bailouts and the auto maker bailouts, both of which have been successful.

Someone explain this to me so I can understand.

Obama caves !!!

For three years now I have been an unquestioned supporter of Mr. Obama, until today.

I am not the smartest guy. I am not a politician or economist or a lawyer. I am not rich. I am disabled and a Vietnam Vet. I never made more than $32,000 a year in my life. I am just a regular person. No one special. I am a lifelong registered Republican.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest persons make no fiscal sense. This was personal income, not corporate taxes. We as a nation cannot afford these tax cuts and they have NO bearing on job creation since they are PERSONAL income tax cuts.

The President caved in to the Republicans who held the unemployed hostage. This was just plain wrong.

I can only hope and pray that Congress does not go along with this disaster. Maybe Mr. Obama will grow a backbone, recognize this is wrong and veto the bill.

Mr. Obama, please..stand up for the 98% of us who have already gone on record that this is just plain wrong and unfair.

Don't Ask Don't Tell. DADT

I am not sure what the big deal is with DADT. A little history here. Prior to DADT, the Military would ask you if you were a homosexual and if you told the truth, they would reject you. DADT made an accommodation in this area by eliminating the question. If you were gay and were willing to follow the rules, in other words not engage in homosexual activity while on duty and kept your sexual orientation quiet, you could serve.

From my point of view, the only practical difference between getting rid of DADT is simply this, gays can now serve openly if they choose to. The only difference between now and repeal is the fact they can actually say they are gay if they choose to and not be kicked out. Gays are serving now in the military, that is a fact. For the life of me, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like there will be an influx of gays in the military except for those 80,000 who have been kicked out for admitting it, those who may wish to return to active duty.

This is not necessarily a moral issue for me. The reality is there are gay folks, simple fact of life. To deny them the opportunity to serve just like the rest of us seems unfair. They are good Americans who want to serve their country, to defend her as those before. They don't do it because they are gay, they do it it because they are Americans.

The military conducted their studies and the facts are clear. DADT must go. Congress should accept this. The military wants it to end, if it's ok with them, who are we to say otherwise? Think of it this way. When was the last time the military actually asked the rank and file what they thought? NEVER. The answer is clear, 70% said, get rid of it.

Bush Tax Cuts and unemployment are a red herring

Ok, let me see if I can explain my understanding of the effect of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

First, these tax cuts have little to do with small business. Only 2% of those affected by the tax cuts are small business owners. These are people who have cottage industries who probably don't make an AGI of $250,000.00. Even if they did, they can always increase expenditures by either buying more equipment with accelerated depreciation or hire more employees to offset. To suggest that these individual tax breaks, if allowed to expire will affect employment is a flat out lie. These taxes are on PERSONAL income, not corporate tax rates. In other words, a hedge fund manager who makes an AGI of $10,000,000.00 of PERSONAL income, will pay roughly 3% more in taxes that they pay now if the tax breaks are allowed to sunset. The people most affected are those who over the last 8 years have seen their incomes rise by nearly 100%. Those making less than $250K have seen their incomes nearly flat line. To tell me that those in the higher income brackets cannot afford the slightly higher taxes is laughable.

Personal income taxes on the uber wealthy have no effect on US unemployment. It is hardly likely they buy at WalMart or Sears for that matter. One Congressman has shown the average tax increase is roughly $60-80K, which is enough to buy, say a cheap Mercedes or diamond jewelry or some other high end item. How does this trickle down to the average worker? It doesn't. What we are talking about is an additional $700B deficit to allow the wealthy to maintain their current lifestyle. Who ends up paying the debt and debt service on this $700B? We do and our children and grandchildren. Basically, the rest of us subsidize the tax breaks for the wealthy. That hardly seems fair, ethical or moral.

Again, let me say this. This is PERSONAL income, not corporate taxes. I would suspect that those making more than $250,000.00 probably have the opportunity to negotiate a higher compensation package to offset the higher taxes. I mean a simple 3% increase in compensation annually will keep them neutral.

As I have stated before, if Mr. Obama lays down on this issue I can guarantee he will lose my vote for 2012.

Confederate Sesquicentennial

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.

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.

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.

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.

Grow up America

I am irritated by the complete ignorance and stupidity of the American people as a whole.

In 2008 this nation elected by democratic process, Mr. Obama. During the campaign Mr. Obama made many promises to the American people. These include, Health Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, Economic Stimulus Package, Lowering taxes for average wage earners, Ending Combat operations in Iraq, Increasing combat operations in Afghanistan, a more open accounting for the American people to see online. Would I be out of line by saying he has actually done what he said he would do, yet his approval ratings are below 50%? Today it is reported that by one poll, the Republicans have a 10% lead over Democrats in the upcoming elections in November. There is no rational explanation for this change in preference. The last 2 years have shown us that the Republicans have thrown every roadblock in the way of Mr. Obama. The mantra was always to destroy his presidency. The Republicans have presented NO plan or ideas as how to resolve the issues Mr. Obama addressed. Their focus was to make him fail, meet his Waterloo. The focus has been on where the President was born, even though the evidence has show they are wrong. Another focus has been his religion, as a Muslim when it is clear he is a Christian. Pounding the airwaves with out and out lies does not make a lie the truth, yet that is what seems to be happening. More an more people actually now believe the lie. This is sheer insanity. Are we as a nation, a nation of unthinking sheep? Sure seems to appear that way. Republicans want to repeal the health care law, which they cannot do. The Republicans want to repeal the Wall Street reform law, which they cannot do. When given the chance to make permanent the Bush tax cuts on the top 3% rich folk, they failed. Today they want to call the expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy a tax increase, when all that is happening is the temporary cuts are expiring, no increase at all, just back to where they were before. We are talking 2 trillion dollars in lost revenue if they are allowed to remain. What are we talking about here? up to a 3.5% increase in taxes. That's what this is all about, up to 3.5%. The price of gas can go up that high in one day and we manage to survive, i.e. $2.50/gal to $2.59/gal.

It's no wonder Republicans are against an educated America, smart Americans will see these people for what they really are.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin at the Lincoln Memorial

It is out of the question to think that such a revolutionary reconstruction could be carried out by those who are the custodians and the more or less responsible representatives of the old regime, or by the political organizations founded under the old form of the Constitution. Nor would it be possible to bring this about by collaborating with these institutions, but only by establishing a new movement which will fight against them for the purpose of carrying through a radical reformation in political, cultural and economic life. And this fight will have to be undertaken even at the sacrifice of life and blood, if that should be necessary.

In this connection it is worthy of remark that when the average political party wins a parliamentary victory no essential change takes place in the historical course which the people are following or in the outer aspect of public life; whereas a genuine revolution that arises from a profound ideological insight will always lead to a transformation which is strikingly impressive and is manifest to the outside world.

This is first and foremost a problem of organization. Phrases, such as the freedom of the economic system, for example, are no help. What we have to do is use all available means at hand to make production possible and open up fields of activity for our working energies. If this can be successfully done by the economic leaders themselves, that is to say by the industrialists, then we are content.

Seeing that we insist on the national importance of the function which our economic system fulfills, it naturally follows that the former disunion between employer and employee can no longer exist. But the new State will not and does not wish to assume the role of entrepreneur. It will regulate the working strength of the nation only in so far as such regulation is necessary for the common good. And it will supervise conditions and methods of working only in so far as this is in the interests of all those engaged in work. Under no circumstances will the State attempt to bureaucratize economic life. The economic effects that follow from every real and practical initiative benefit the people as a whole. At the present moment an inventor or an economic organizer is of inestimable value to the community.

Ooops. These are excerpts from Adolph Hitler's speech before the Reichstag, 30 January 1937.

Kinda sounds like Sarah Palin with her Propaganda Minister Glenn Beck in tow.

Muslim Cultural Center near Ground Zero

I don't understand what the big deal is? This is purely a local issue, which was voted on and approved by a 29-0 vote. Why should we care if a Muslim Cultural Center is 2 blocks away from ground zero? I mean, what if is was a strip club? Would there be this sort of uproar? This building sat vacant for 8 years, no one wanted it. Now someone wants it and there is this uproar. Look, Muslims did not attack the US on 9/11, Al Qaida did. This would be just as silly as saying that we should castigate all Christians because the KKK killed a negro.

No, this is a racist/religious persecution plain and simple and that is why we have the 1st Amendment. Which reads in part.. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion.

The Constitution is quite clear on this point, "impeding the free exercise of religion". Regardless of all the whining going on, these folks have every right to put this center wherever they want.

So you see, it does not matter what you may think on this issue, the matter has been settled by the US Constitution, so get over it.

Only WE can fix the economy stupid!!

I am so freaking frustrated with reading/listening to how Consumer Confidence is low, which is why consumer spending is down. Confidence is low? What does this mean? Oh, I don't want to spend any money because the economy is in the toilet. Did it ever dawn on you that you NOT spending money is the problem? Sure savings are higher now, the banks are flush with cash, paying tiny returns and hoarding cash, your cash. They aren't making loans because the economy is bad. Poor folk don't save, they spend all they have. It's everyone else who has extra cash laying around who aren't spending.
I had a conversation with a retiree who told me he wasn't going to make any large purchases because the economy is 'bad'. I said to him, are you nuts? You have a fixed income, prices are rock bottom, the 'bad' economy does not affect you at all, yet you won't spend? What kind of idiots are you people? The economy will not recover as it should unless we start spending again. When we spend, stores have to stock up, meaning manufacturers and suppliers have to hire more people, meaning more people employed to buy more stuff. We need to take back control over our own lives and economy. The government cannot resolve every problem. We need to stop whining how bad things are and do something about it.
As an example, the car industry was in a shambles, now after investment they are back making a profit again. People are buying cars again. This is a small segment, we can do more, do better. So open up your checkbooks and start buying, do your part !!

Sunsetting the Tax Breaks for the wealthy is NOT a tax increase

Today a talking head made an interesting analogy that all of us can understand. Thing of the temporary tax cuts for the wealthy by the Bush administration as a coupon you get in the mail. It has an expiration date on it. If you try to use that coupon after that date, are you being ripped off by paying the actual price? Of course not. The coupon, as with the tax cuts were a temporary measure, passed by a Republican Congress under Budget Reconciliation. Efforts since then to make them permanent have failed throughout the years. We are talking about the top 2% of the wage earners in this country. If allowed to continue, the cost to the deficit will soon reach 4.4 Trillion dollars. This is from ONE temporary tax break which will sunset January 2011. Temporary tax break. Like the Cash for Clunkers, temporary. Like the tax breaks for purchasing a home or hybrid car, temporary. The Republicans have not complained about those being tax increases have they? How is a temporary tax break expiring a tax increase, or is it that the playing field is being put back in place as it once was. 23 million jobs were created during the Clinton years with the old tax rate. 3 Million jobs have been created since the tax breaks went into effect. The Heritage Foundation claims that keeping the tax breaks will create no new jobs, but will prevent jobs from being lost. They know there is no way to quantify the amount of jobs lost due to allowing the law to expire because the economy is in a shambles as it is. So they throw out bogus numbers.

The reality is this. If, after all my expenses and tax breaks and write offs, I as a business man have a $1 million tax liability, what would I do to limit that liability? Maybe hire 3 or 4 workers and take advantage of those tax breaks? What makes more sense to me? Hiring 4 workers and saving money, or give it all to the government?

I know what I would do.

Our energy future is not going to happen unless...

Frankly I am sick and tired of all the talk about energy independence. Just now I saw yet another ad for some group wanting you to support energy independence without as usual specifics. This is what drives me nuts. Great idea to achieve it, yet no one seems to have a real plan to do it in a realistic, well thought out program. It is very clear to me that the only way real change will come is if the government actually mandates it.

In years past, when whaling destroyed the ability to use whale oil to light homes, gas and and that new fangled oil from the ground provided the obvious next step. At the time, we had viable options that were a natural progression. Today we are dealing with a finite amount of fossil fuels, sucking the earth dry at a dramatic rate without any real transition option available. China is booming and disrupting the status quo as far as consumption is concerned. The end date for fossil fuels is looming faster everyday. The problem is that there are other 'options' available.

I want to focus on one area that we are all familiar with, gasoline. I choose this because it is the most complicated to resolve. As of today there are at least three options for the future available. Electric power is the first. Battery technology is a growing research industry and new technologies are available today. The problem with full electric powered cars is their limited range. The 2011 Chevy Volt has a range of 40 miles. Now Chevrolet claims that most people commute less than 40 miles, this may be true. The reality is that in the real world people don't want to wait for a charge to jump in and go. There is a gas generator that will kick in and allow you to go up to 300 miles. Again though, gasoline is still used. True, the alleged fuel economy is higher, but it is nothing more than an advanced hybrid. You can plug in your Volt to 110v and in 10 hours you are charged, or you can install a 240 circuit and charge in 4. At $.12 per kw/hr you can expect to pay $45.00 a month for the electricity to travel 40 miles a day. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle such as the Honda FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen supplied by a solar powered home refueling station. The equivalent mpg to gasoline is 60 mpg, the range on a single hydrogen fill is 240 miles. Hydrogen as we all know is the most abundant element on planet earth. The third option is a combination hybrid/increased CAFE standards, meaning we are still using OIL.

Since all types use battery packs, the research funding for better battery technologies makes sense. The issue for me is which technology will win out with regards to what type of vehicle should they be put in. We have competing technologies which is expensive and unnecessary. This is where the government should step in and take a leadership role by defining one standard for use by all manufacturers.

The premise.

Auto manufacturers will spend billions because their systems must be competitive, the weaker ones will fall by the wayside without help. Some will stick with hybrid, some electric and some fuel cells (FCV). The government will lose trillions on gas taxes in the process. Oil companies will be resistant, but if they thought ahead, they could be a key factor in making my idea work.

The idea.

The Federal government must take a stand and do the right thing, regardless of the politics. It is clear than any reliance on fossil fuels must be reduced as practicable as possible. The only realistic solution is the FCV. No fossil fuels used to drive. Honda has developed a solar based home fueling station. Whether totally electric or FCV, both use batteries and electric motors. The difference is that the electric car plugs into your home or office, no fuel cell. Commuter cars would benefit from all electric and they can be today's version of the sub compact. Midsize and larger would be FCV's. For this to work the government will set a single standard. The government will contract each FCV manufacturer to submit for approval their power pack designs for midsize and larger vehicles and for light duty trucks. There will be open competition between the designs. The winning design will be the only approved power pack to be used in all domestic and foreign imported or captive import vehicles. All the car manufacturers will have to do is incorporate the power pack into their own vehicle design. One power pack will power every single vehicle in the US. The power pack can be built under license from the winner with no royalties paid. What makes this good for the consumer is that they can take their vehicle into any dealership in the US to resolve power pack issues that may arise. Having a standard power pack simplifies maintenance and service issues. The costs are substantially less because the development costs will be for one, rather than competing designs. In fact it may be preferable to have a separate consortium responsible for the design and manufacturing of the power pack. Manufacturers can use whatever battery and motor design they choose. Only the power supply is standard.

Truck will be only of the diesel power design, no gasoline trucks. The diesel design would be to use JP4/5 aviation jet fuel, or aviation jet to comply with Federal truck standards. The idea being again, standardization.

This leaves farm tractors and lawn mowers, vintage cars, weed eaters etc. to run on gasoline.

There must be a hard and fast deadline for 100% of all new vehicles sold in the US as either electric or FCV's. Truck deadlines could be done in 2 years. I would say, 10 years for 100%. No sense in wasting anymore time on this.

How the government will recoup the taxes lost is their problem.

How can the oil companies benefit? One they will no longer have to drill for oil for US consumption. Two, they have the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver hydrogen to filling stations. No tax breaks for big oil to retrofit either. They will benefit from the investment plus the outrageous profits they will generate from the new lack of demand in the US.

The bottom line is this. We will continue spinning our wheels as long as people TALK about doing something. It's time to actually do it.

We can, we will !!

iPod Touch as an example

I have been wondering about something lately. I own an iPod Touch, which by the way is a terrific device. It is made in China, engineered however in the good old USA. From what I can tell, this device appears to be assembled via robotics. What I don't understand is this. What is the financial benefit of assembling a device in China, especially when the device is made without the benefit of manual labor? I mean, the lead times are longer due to shipping and US Customs. There are the packaging costs and repackaging costs and distribution and domestic shipping costs. As for an import tariff, I cannot find one listed for an iPod or Computer or Cellphone imported into the USA. If this is so, why is it so? If anyone can show me what the tariff is, I would be grateful. I just don't get it. There is something missing here. Some loophole that allows a company to ship manufacturing jobs overseas and make a larger profit otherwise must exist. The numbers just don't make any sense if you look at the actual costs to manufacture this product. Believe it or not, Dickies aren't even made in the USA, yet you pay for the name. Can you believe that Hanes cannot manufacture a t-shirt in the USA for a low price? Of course they can, so why not? Even if the cost to produce were say $.25 more per t-shirt, I would gladly pay an extra $.50 per shirt to buy American, would'nt you?

Unemployment Benefits Drug Tests?

"Welfare and unemployment beneficiaries would have to pass a drug test to qualify for programs under an amendment offered Tuesday by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). ".

Well folks, this is something I can agree with. There has been a bit of an uproar over Sen. Hatch suggestion, but it is consistent with every single requirement each state has, to receive benefits you must be willing and able to work, to be employable.

It has been my experience, tho anecdotal, that over 50% of applicants who have been offered jobs at the local Wal-Mart failed their drug tests. Not 50% of all applicants, 50% of those who were actually offered a job.

I disagree with the idea that those who fail the drug test under this proposed law be given free drug counseling. My preference would be to deny their claim and have them come back 90 days later and take the test again. This is a simple matter of personal responsibility. It is a person's choice to use drugs. If you use drugs and are unemployed, you are not eligible for benefits because you are not employable thereby giving a state a reason to deny benefits. It seems to me that requiring a drug test does not need a special law since the requirement to be employable is already part of the statutes.

Israeli Massacre on the high seas.

I am appalled that the world has not come down on Israel for her illegal and immoral attack on a Turkish ship on the high seas bringing humanitarian aid to the blockaded residents of Gaza. All politics aside for one moment, lets look at legalities. The ship was Turkish flagged, meaning it is essentially Turkish soil. The ship was in international waters. The ship carried no arms or terrorist equipment. No soldiers or Freedom fighters. This was a humanitarian aid ship. The attack on a Turkish flagged vessel is illegal under international law.

Much has been made by the left leaning press that the Israeli commandos were 'defending' themselves. What a joke!!! They were attacking the ship, the crew and folks onboard were the ones defending themselves against an illegal attack by the Israeli!! What were the commandos defending themselves against? Pipes? Being tossed overboard by the folks defending their ship? I saw a plastic chair thrown at a commando. I am not aware of, nor has it been reported that the folks on the vessel shot at or killed any of the commandos, yet 9 people on a humanitarian mission were killed.

Hundreds were taken prisoner and most deported, the ones not deported will be thoroughly investigated, probably tortured and either released or put on trial. Put on trial? For what crime? No crime was committed. The ship had not passed through the blockade, it was still many miles away.

Now, why is there a blockade in the first place? Because the people of Gaza exercised their right by democratic vote to choose a government Israel does not approve of.

Back off Israel!!! These are human beings who deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of the world should have, even Israel. You don't blockade a whole people because you don't like the government they elected. It is an act of war to do so.

PS. Let us not forget the Israeli mindset. The consider themselves the 'chosen ones'. Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament shows the Jews as the masters of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I asked a minister once why the Jews could justify the murder of men, women and children since clearly if violates the Ten Commandments. If was explained to me that since they are the chosen ones, that all other races and people were inferior to the Jew and therefore not considered, for this purpose as as human as the Jew. The rules as defined by the Ten Commandments are only to be used by Jews with Jews, not non-Jews. Interestingly enough while the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians, they were not slaughtered enmasse as the Jews would have done. Does this suggest that the Egyptians were more civilised in their treatment?

Gulf Oil Spill

Well peeps, we need to understand and face certain realities. I am sick and tired of listening to the the Tea Baggers/RWNJ whine and complain about how the Federal government and the President are somehow responsible. Lets set the record straight. This is NOT a natural disaster such as Katrina. This disaster is a man made disaster, BP is 100% responsible for it and the clean up and financial losses. BP as a condition of being granted rights to drill accepted that responsibility and assured the regulators that drilling is safe and if there was an incident, they were in a position to resolve the problem. BP is the responsible party. No doubt. The President and government are not responsible. No doubt. It is true that the government is overseeing the efforts to resolve the problem, but there is little more it can do. The US government is NOT equipped to stop the leak, it never has been. The US government is not responsible for financial losses. We have no choice but to rely on BP to resolve this issue. Who else do we turn to? Exxon? This is a private company matter. Right wingers want less government regulation, they got it. Right wingers want less interference in our private lives from the Federal government, yet who do they turn to when something like this happens? Gov. Jindal refused Federal stimulus money, yet is begging for bail out money for the oil spill. He should be going to BP not the American taxpayer. Place the blame where it belongs, with BP, not the President.

I am not a racist...but.

Today I watching for a time on MSNBC snippets from the National Action Network. I was struck by the same old complaints and whining regarding the Black agenda. The following is a written statement from the NAN website written by Rev. Sharpton.

Complimenting the ‘Measuring the Movement’ roundtable that Saturday will be a secondary panel that will include recording artist Chuck D, BET personality Jeff Johnson, professor at Harvard Law Dr. Charles Ogletree, TLC Health Care Services President Debra Toney, Warren Ballentine of ‘The Warren Ballentine Show’, assistant professor of finance at Syracuse University Dr. Boyce Watkins and Judge Greg Mathis, star of the Court TV series, ‘The Judge Mathis Show’. The roundtable will engage in a thorough discussion with this secondary panel as we intelligently debate key issues like skyrocketing unemployment, health care reform, education gaps, housing foreclosures, job creation and more. We will each pledge real action to effectively combat many of these concerns, and we will reconvene next year to pinpoint exactly which promises we delivered on and how we created tangible results. It is undeniably crucial at this stage that we as a community cannot simply have a conversation about inequalities and disparities that surround us, but we must take real, actionable measures to bring about the constructive change we seek. The stakes couldn’t be higher; the time couldn’t be more pressing; and the risk of not doing anything is simply far too great and troubling. Even though we will continue to hold the President and our elected officials accountable, I cannot stress how important it is to hold ourselves as equally accountable too. Everyone will undoubtedly leave enlightened, re-energized and motivated to counter the disparities we see around us.

In equalities and disparities. Again we hear that government is responsible to correct these inequalities and disparities. Government is expected to create jobs for the Black community, to provide health care and educational opportunities.

Personally I find myself being unsympathetic to the 'black issues'. No race in the history of this country has been singled out for Federal bailouts as overwhelmingly large as the Black community. What do we/they have to show for it? Virtually nothing when you look at the big picture. The complaints are the same. My question is why are there complaints? We have an African-American President. He is just as black as those complaining at the conference. Education? Our President is Harvard educated, he earned his degree like so many others, grants, student loans and hard work. His family was a broken one. They had no money, yet here he is, President of the United States. Now, if the son of an African immigrant and Caucasian mother from Kansas can make it, so can anyone else.

I don't hear the Asian Americans complaining, Hispanic Americans complaining. The ONLY minority race in this country, the one most pampered in recent times is the one complaining the loudest. I disagree that opportunities for Blacks do not exist. Instead of expecting a handout, how about reaching out to your own community and coming to you own solutions just like everyone else. Pakistani's, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese people all found a way to survive and flourish. Why not blacks? Why are they so different? Everyone knows the answer. Pampering, entitlements.

The complaint now on TV is how the money is taken from the black community and not being returned or reinvested. I am glad this came up because I am ready for this one as my primary example.

The largest Black owned bank in the US is Carver Bancorp in NYC, founded in 1949. According to Wikipedia, they had revenues of $26.1 million, 126 employees. The largest Hispanic owned bank is IBC, in Laredo, TX, founded in 1966 with revenues of $10.9 Billion. Yes, billion. IBC has 250 branches in 90 cities with 380 ATM's.

IBC started as a small hometown bank in Laredo, TX. Not NYC.

Are we to surmise that Hispanics are smarter than Blacks? Do Hispanics handle money better?

I had no idea that IBC was a Hispanic owned bank until I saw their poster as #1 while walking by a branch at my local WalMart. The bank looked like any other bank to me. Maybe there is something there?

Let me give you another real world example of the real issue.

A Pakistani family saves their money and sends their smartest to the US to start a small business. He comes here and finds a storefront in a rundown Black community, signs a lease and opens a small grocery store. All his customers are Black, he has to charge higher rates because he does not have the buying power of WalMart or Kroger. He does well. He sends money home and the family sends another member to help out in the store. The second member then takes his seed money and opens up a business too. The cycle continues indefinitely. Now, who complain the loudest? The Black community because the Pakistani is making money off the backs of po' black folk. If there is a riot or civil unrest as in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots, who got burned out? The Pakistani. Now you have no store to buy your groceries and no one will come back for a very long time. Who then complains because they don't have a market? The people who burned it down! This is reality folks. My question is, why did not the black people open their own store? They live here. There are financial incentives to do so. They speak the language. They have connections to the community. So why not? WHY NOT?

In closing, I just want to offer some advice to Black Americans. Stop complaining, be part of the solution. If Barack Obama and the Pakistani can do it, so can you.

Welcome Home Vietnam Veteran's Day

Well, here is one I can agree with Senator LeMieux about. This is LONG overdue. This one bill is not enough for me to like or support Senator LeMieux, but it is a great idea.

Senator LeMieux wrote: "

Designating a "Welcome Home Vietnam Veteran's Day"

Recently, I joined efforts to designate March 30th as a nationally recognized day to honor the courage and sacrifice of the 58,000 Americans who died, and the more than 300,000 wounded during the Vietnam War.

While some states and localities set aside a day of appreciation for these brave individuals, a national day of honor will provide the fitting recognition these veterans deserve.

Our nation is truly grateful for the sacrifices made by our veterans while serving in South Vietnam and throughout Southeast Asia."

Federal Takeover of Health Reform?

Okay, someone explain this one to me. The Republic Party is now into Repeal and Replace the Health Reform LAW. What are a couple of the things they want? Lets start with Tort Reform, limiting medical malpractice awards. As it stands now, tort laws regarding medical malpractice are governed by state law. The Republic Party wants to replace state law with...umm...Federal law, taking state protections away and replaced with Federal protections. Who decides what those protections are? The Federal government, that's who. Wait, aren't the Tea Party/Republic Party the ones who want less Federal control over states right? The second change would be the ability to buy insurance across state lines. Each state governs their own insurance industry. To be able to sell across state lines would require Federal standards that would trump state insurance controls. Who would set those standards? The Federal government. Wait, aren't the Tea Party/Republic Party the ones who want less Federal control over states right?

What the Health Reform law does do with regards to buying across state lines is simply this, it sets minimum standards for what the insurance industry can offer it's customers. While you cannot buy across state lines necessarily, at least the minimum standards would be set for all Americans. Seems like a fair compromise to me. For now.

Before the right wing complains much more, think about what you are wanting to do first.

Recess Appointments

Before our Republic friends try to make issue of the recess appointments OUR President has made, may I refer them to Article 2 of the US Constitution, Section 2, "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.".

The President at his/her discretion has a constitutional obligation as they see fit to fill vacancies. In their judgment they may do so during a recess as authorized specifically in the US Constitution. Whine as the Republic party may, this is completely within the obligation and authorization within the constitution.

Filled out my 2010 Census Form today

I was so tickled to get my census form, if for no other reason to make a political statement.

The only thing they got out of me was my name and number of people in my household, the other questions I left blank.

The constitution requires us to take a head count every ten years, no where does it say anything about breaking us down by age, sex or race. I have always been insulted when asked what my race is. My vote and apportionment has nothing to do with race or sex or age. I mean, if I were a Negro, do I get counted twice? Is there some special rule if I am a certain age or sex? Of course not. There had better not be. We are supposed to be a color-blind society, we do not discriminate due to sex or age (or so they say). I considered the questions irrelevant and unconstitutional and wrote as much on the form. I hope their computer chokes on my reply.

I recommend all who have yet to fill out the form to do that same. Answer the names and # of people living in your home. That is all they need to know.

Charlie and Marco...what are Floridians thinking?

I will be the first to admit I like Charlie Crist. As Governor of Florida he has shown himself to be quite the pragmatist. Charlie recognises the fact that he is Governor for all the people, not just Republicans, but Democrats and Independents, all citizens of the state. Marco Rubio has no clue as to what that kind of job entails. As a representative of ALL the people you have to take into account the NEEDS of ALL the people, not just Republicans as he has shown he is only interested in serving. Charlie on the other hand knows how to do what is best for ALL, to find a balance. What concerns me most about Rubio are statements such as this, “He’s not going to stand up to Barack Obama. I will." Stand up to the President of the United States? What good would it do to stand up to the President of the United States? What does he mean? Does it mean he plans on some sort of coup? As a US Senator, there are rules to follow and he will find that he as part of the minority party there is no chance in hell he could prevent the President from performing his constitutional obligations.

Lets say Rubio is elected as an antagonist, a single cog in the minority. What can he do as one person to prevent the will of the majority? To overcome a Presidential veto his party will need a super majority to do so, which is an absolute impossibility. No, Rubio has a choice. Join the party of NO and accomplish NOTHING for the people he represents or he will be compelled to act in the capacity worthy of being a US Senator. Now, he can waste his time with his political diatribe and accomplish nothing or he can work within the system to get part of what he wants, or believes his constituents want.

Floridians can save a lot of time and trouble by electing Charlie Crist. Charlie knows what it is like to represent all Floridians. Sure he accepted stimulus funds, what choice did he have? If he had said no, the legislature would have overridden his decision, after all the way the law was written, the legislatures had the option to override the governor. See South Carolina as an example. The legislature overrode the governor and accepted the money. Governor Perry of Texas who claims not to have accepted stimulus funds in his campaign ads lied. Texas was awarded 13 billion dollars, of which 1.2 billion has already spent. Had Charlie Crist refused the money, he would have been run out of town on a rail.

There is a saying, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Rubio chooses the latter. Is being a jerk and disagreeable what Floridians really want? I think not.

Solution for the US Post Office

So that we are clear, the US Post Office (USPS) is a constitutionally mandated function of the government. No matter what happens, it must survive as does the Congress.

When the USPS became a separate entity, limitations were placed upon it by Congress, these limitations by their nature prevent the USPS to evolve with changing times.

Here is one solution that will help. Compel by law that any business or web-based entity to offer USPS as a shipping option instead of offering one, such as UPS or FedEx.

I cannot tell you how frustrating these companies are when I ask that my item be shipped via USPS. 99% percent refuse to do it. The one's that will, use the hybrid UPS/USPS system, which is just as bad as the UPS system. The explanations run from, we won't use USPS, we cannot track (untrue), no one wants it or no one asks for it. The truth is, they have made deal with UPS or FedEx to get lower rates, which USPS cannot do, the playing field is not even level. The thing is, the lower rates are not passed on to the customer, it just feeds the company's bottom line. Even if the shipping is 'free', the cost in time is not worth it if you use anything but USPS.

Let me give you a couple of examples to make my solution relevant and clear. I want to buy an item online from a company and it ships on a Wednesday, if they use UPS I will get the item the next Tuesday, maybe Monday. If it is shipped via USPS Priority Mail, I will have it by Friday or Saturday.

Now, if I buy a small item from company A and all they use is FedEx, I will pay $6.95 for FedEx and take 5 business days. If I want the same item with 3 day service, I would pay $13.95. If the company used Priority Mail, their cost would be less than $5 and I would have no problem paying say $7.95 to get the same service as FedEx, except USPS delivers on Saturdays for free.

As a consumer buying a product, I would like to have the option of using the best shipping method, my choice not the vendors.

The problem is we are sheep and will lay down for these companies.

If compelled by law to at least offer USPS, we as the consumer and as American's will have a real choice. I am sick and tired of being told, I have no choice, I have to accept it because it's the way it is, when it does not have to be that way.

I do not see a problem making it a law since the constitution established the postal service and all the law would do is ensure it's viability.

Give us a choice.

Texas Gov. Perry is a Tenther!!!! Big surprise

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, you know the guy who wants Texas to secede from the Union, again is a Tenther, according to one of his television ads. Perry is running for re-election.

What is a Tenther, if you don't already know are people (?) and/or organizations which believe in the strict interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Basically the Tenthers do not want to be told by the Federal government what to do in any form unless it is specifically outlined in the Constitution. The fact that the US Supreme Court has upheld any attacks from the states seems to have been missed by these folks. The problem for the states is a simple one, but wrought with all kinds of problems, like political suicide. The Federal government cannot make any state do anything, not covered by the Constitution, except in cases where the states accept Federal money for anything. Basically speaking if a state university accepts Federal funding for anything, that funding will be conditional on the university following all Federal rules. Many Federal funding or grants have strings attached, like you have to actually do what you are supposed to with the money, under Federal rules. An example might be a state accepts Federal matching funds to build a new runway at DFW. The Federal rules may say that the work must be done by the lowest bidder and have a certain percentage of union jobs directly attached. Now since the Feds are paying 90% of the cost, it makes sense they can make the rules, right?

What Tenthers want is the Feds to hand them basically a blank check to do whatever they want, how they want without Federal rules.

Can you imagine what would have happened to the Economic Stimulus money if the Feds just wrote a blank check to each state?

Look, if you are a state that has been devastated by some disaster and you go to your Uncle Sam for a bailout, does that Uncle not have a right to tell you how the money is going to be spent? You go to your dad and ask for money to buy a car and you blow it on a ski boat, I am certain that will be the last time he gives you money.

Tenthers are states rights advocates. They bitch and complain about the Federal money coming into their states with strings attached. They want the Feds to just cut a check. Remember we are talking about politicians with a blank check, a really really big one. Yet, who shows up at the ribbon cutting ceremony? The same folks who 'claim' they don't want it in the first place.

Gov. Perry, I have one word of advice. If you are a real Tenther, firmly believe as your ads say, then it's simple. Refuse ALL Federal money for EVERYTHING. That is the only way you could be happy because without accepting the money, the Feds have no leverage. Just Say No to them. Accept no money, then the strings are cut. Honestly, I don't think you have the courage to stand by your own rhetoric.

Right bear arms and the right to light 'em up.

Ah the Second Amendment, the one most likely to be misinterpreted, misunderstood or not even read at all by those spouting their 'right to bear arms' rationale.

Consider this article.... At Starbucks, Gun Owners Push Right To Bear Arms...Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas. The article goes on to explain that there are people who want to exercise their alleged right to bear arms, even in a public place and private property. Now, I don't know about you but I would find someone coming into any establishment carrying a firearm just a little unnerving. I mean, what is your first thought? Law Enforcement? Maybe. Criminal? Maybe. A jerk acting 'big'? Maybe. Law abiding citizen showing off his weapon just to prove a point? Not likely. I mean, what do we know about this person? Does this person even have the 'right' to carry a weapon like that? What do you do, call the Police and have them come and check the guy out? How would the Police handle a person carrying a weapon into say, a Starbucks and a patron calls 911? Are we not asking for trouble? If carrying a weapon becomes common-place, there won't be enough Police to investigate these kinds of calls, so I would imagine that criminal would pick up on this and figure, why not? It's so commonplace that now one would even question it. Is there a danger looming? I think so.

Interestingly, I cannot walk into a public or private place and light up a cigarette in most places in this country. Hell, I cannot smoke where I live, yet cigarettes are legal and regulated with more stringent rules than firearms. In fact cigarettes are taxed by far greater than firearms and firearm supplies. Yet both are 'legal'. Oddly, I could carry a Bushmaster into a Starbucks and that would be okay, but walk in with the weapon and fire up a cigarette, well we all know what would happen. The question remains, which is more threatening? 33% of those folks would not be intimidated or threatened by me lighting up. How many of the people in a Starbucks would feel intimidated or threatened or maybe a little scared by the sight of a weapon that 'looks' like an assault rifle?

Food for thought.

Oh, the Second Amendment reads..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now for an example of what was considered a 'well regulated militia'.

An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia, April 1757:

"WHEREAS it is necessary, in this time of danger, that the militia of this colony should be well regulated and disciplined...And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every person so as aforesaid inlisted (except free mulattoes, negroes, and Indians) shall be armed in the manner following, that is to say: Every soldier shall he furnished with a firelock well fixed, a bayonet fitted to the same, a double cartouch-box, and three charges of powder, and constantly appear with the same at the time and place appointed for muster and exercise, and shall also keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of ball, and bring the same with him into the field when he shall be required...And for the better training and exercising the militia, and rendering them more serviceable, Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every captain shall, once in three months, and oftner if thereto required by the lieutenant or chief commanding officer in the county, muster, train, and exercise his company, and the lieutenant or other chief commanding officer in the county shall cause a general muster and exercise of all the companies within his county, to be made in the months of March or April, and September or October, yearly; and if any soldier shall, at any general or private muster, refuse to perform the command of his officer, or behave himself refractorily or mutinously, or misbehave himself at the courts martial to be held in pursuance of this act, as is herein after directed, it shall and may be lawful to and for the chief commanding officer, then present, to cause such offender to be tied neck and heels, for any time not exceeding five minutes, or inflict such corporal punishment as he shall think fit, not exceeding twenty lashes.

Now, as many learned people know, the National Guard replaced the state militias. However if the Second Amendment folks would rather use contemporary, for the time interpretation of a militia and the armaments requirements, I am all for it. I particularily like the twenty lashes part.

Health Care Addendum

Much was made on Thursday by the Republic Party that the majority of Americans dislike the Health Care Reform Bill approved by both the Senate and the House. The President noted that when asked, the public approved of the individual parts of the bills by an overwhelming majority. What the Republic Party said is essentially true as well as what the President said, if you base your vote on polls rather than by what is right. The one thing the Republic folks failed to mention and my to my chagrin, neither did the Democrats, that the VAST majority of the American people favour a public option, which the Republic Party will never agree to, ever.

My friends, this is a representative democracy. We elect our lawmakers to promulgate bills and laws in the interests of us all. We surrender our perceived right to have direct voting by the public on national issues. Think of it this way, if the American people had a direct vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do you really think that it would have been approved by the American people? No it would not have. The idea of having a representative democracy is to ensure that in most cases, the government will do the right thing, even if it is not popular or approved by the majority of the population.

Health Care Reform Bill will become law, like it or not.

It is clear to me that the Republic Party is getting the amendments they added to the Senate's version of health care reform. 70% of what they want is in the bill.

So there is NO misunderstanding, the Senate Bill has already been passed with 60 votes for, a super-majority. The House passed their bill with a simple majority. Much has been made about reconciliation, a process where Senate bills are passed with a simple majority, as is stated in the Constitution. Having said all that, the process now is simple. The House now passes the Senate Bill as it stands. It goes to the President for his signature and becomes law.

The deal being struck between the House and the Senate is simple also. The House passes the Senate Bill by majority vote and then the House presents a bill to make adjustments to the Senate bill which has become law, to remove the parts of the bill which the House finds objectionable. The bill then goes to the Senate and under reconciliation, a majority vote, the changes are implemented. That bill then goes to the President for his signature into law.

Okay, do we all understand now?

The President gave the Republic representative's ample opportunity to accept the reality of the situation and offered them the chance to be part of the process. The answer was, start over and take baby steps. The Republic Party has had ample opportunity over the years to do just that, take the baby steps and chose not to. Oh, I am sorry..I am wrong. The Republic Party did pass legislation to create the unfunded Medicare Part D, the Prescription Drug plan. I have Part D and I cannot for the life of me figure it out. One of the parts of that law protected the drug companies from any negotiations to save the government money, in other words, the government pays whatever the drug companies want to charge for they drugs and also banned the re-importation of drugs from Canada, the same ones we have here but at a lower cost. It is an interesting note to point out that the VA is mandated to negotiate with the drug companies for the best price, but not Medicare. This new health care plan closes the donut-hole in part D and requires negotiating for the best price. Did I mention that the Part D law was passed by the Republic Party by a majority vote, by way of reconciliation? The same reconciliation procedure that the Republic party is complaining about now against the Democrats?

As the President said, this bill will become law and let the voters decide in November who was right.

A solution for Tea Baggers/Republic Party

Much has been made lately from the right about less Federal government in our lives. Less is best. Yesterday's Health Care Summit gave me some ideas which I have taken to heart. Personally, I am middle of the road, I choose my own fights and am not locked into to any specific ideology. I like to think I have a brain and can sort out what I think is right for myself. I do not considered myself brainwashed and I do entertain alternative points of view as long as there is a free expression of ideas based upon thought.

There are those folks out there who actually believe what they say without giving what they say any rational thought. One day, I was having a conversation with someone who every time he said the President's name, he followed it by the phrase, "the Muslim". Clearly there is no opportunity here to have a reasonable, let alone rational conversation with a person like this. There is a certain segment in our society that really believes the lies as some sort of truth. Every few days I receive emails from a gentleman who is loosely aligned with the 9th Cav Association I belong to. He has this penchant for attacking the health care plane as proposed by Congress. His latest tirade is about the loss of Social Security health benefits, which anyone who has half a brain knows is just not true. He relies on his own personal network of rightists to profess their truth, as they 'see' it. When I was in the Army, years ago you find this sort of person everywhere. Lifer's we called them. Now, I am not saying that they don't have some valid issues to expound upon, rather there is no way to have a rational conversation with them since they are 'believers' in their own right.

Tenther's and Birther's other Tea Baggers are much the same, you cannot possibly have a free exchange of ideas with them, either because they are truly ignorant or they don't like the idea of paying their fair share for the freedoms we all enjoy. No one likes the idea of deficit spending, unless you consider your car payment or house payment or credit card payment as a form of deficit spending, which they are. I personally have no credit cards, mortgage or car payment. I have no deficit spending, I live within my means. So for all those who complain about deficit spending, think about your personal situation before you go off on the government you wish to rail against.

Enough of my soapbox for now, the title of this blog is an idea for a solution that the Tea Baggers should embrace IF they are truly serious about their desire for change to less government.

For argument's sake...let us start from scratch with regards to Federal responsibilities. Much has been made of sharing the wealth of the rich states with the poor states. Fine, lets do this.

The role of the Federal government shall be limited to areas of national interest. Banking, Border Security, Military Operations, Monetary policy, International Trade and Tariffs, Interstate commerce and Constitutionally mandated individual civil protections. Everything else is left to the states.

Each state will pay to the Federal government a fee to cover the costs of operating the 'New Federal System'. The Federal government will no longer collect taxes from individuals or companies, the states will pay for the support of the Federal system, in cash.

Each state will be responsible for the welfare of their own citizens. Provide for their own basic services as required by state law. Each state will be responsible for everything under their positive control. No more Federal welfare, no more Social Security, No more Food Stamps, Disaster relief or highway funds, aviation funding, infrastructure funding will come from the state coffers. Virtually everything funded or subsidized by the Federal system today will now fall under state control. For example, if a hurricane strikes the Gulf coast, the states are on their own. If the states wish to lower their education standards, so be it. If the states have to build roads and bridges, they pay for it themselves. If there is a toxic site in their state, the fix it on their own dime. If there is some form of Social Security or Welfare or Food Stamp program, it's a state program and they pay for it, not the Feds. Not one dime will come from the Federal government again.

I guarantee there will be no deficit spending on the Federal level again since each state pays their own way to the Federal government to cover the constitutionally mandates.

Of course this all sounds silly because not one state would ever sign on to this sort of change. But this is exactly what the Tenther's want. This is what the Tea Baggers want.

Look, we can bitch and complain about the current system and for sure it's not perfect, but the solutions offered by the right will never be accepted by the mainstream.

Of course, there is the Canada solution, become a Confederation again. Yes, we were a Confederation for 13 years after the Revolution.