Friends, I have just about had it with the whining and complaining going on in America today.
I have no problem with the public expressing outrage over the problems we face as a nation, what I do have a problem with is where the outrage is directed. Everyone is responsible in this regard. The one thing thing that has been ignored is who is actually responsible and why the complaints are misdirected. The bottom line is this, if you are going to whine and complain, then focus on who is really responsible and do something about it. As I will point out, we can do something about it because there is but one cause and we do have the ability to rectify the situation on our own. The question is, can we walk the walk? Personally, I don't think the American people have the courage to resolve these issues.
I will give several examples of what I am talking about here. I will also point out the root causes and then what we can do about it.
There are those who will blame our President for raising taxes. The truth is, no President has the power to raise taxes. In fact, the President cannot submit a budget directly to the House, only members can do that. No Presidential budget has ever been passed by Congress in it's original submitted form. Congress alone is responsible for the budget. For example, the FY 2012 budget was to be finalized by LAW by the last day of September, yet we have no budget, just continuing resolutions. Who is responsible? Congress.
There are those who blame the banks and Wall Street for our financial difficulties. Again, even according to our President, on the surface it appears they broke no laws. There are those who want the banks prosecuted, but if they broke no law, then this won't happen. Why then did we get where we are? Congress deregulated the banks and allowed them to enter into the field of investments. There were not enough safeguards in the law to prevent the financial institutions from doing what they did. Congress, in their shortsightedness chose to open Pandora's Box and look what happened. Should we blame the banks for taking advantage of an opportunity to make a lot of money, courtesy of the US Congress? As a condition of any bailout, Congress should have instituted a financial transaction tax to pay back the American tax payer and to slow down the derivatives market.
Some people blame the banks when some instituted a 4 or 5 dollar fee for using a Visa other debit card (not credit card). Now a bank has every right to recover the costs involved with these transactions. Transactions are handled through a third party clearinghouse. Prior to the banking reform law just passed by Congress, these costs were covered in fees charged the merchants. By law those fees were reduced. Two things happened, one the merchants did not lower their prices to reflect the reduction, but it does pad their bottom line. Secondly, since the fees were reduced the banks had to find a way to cover those costs, hence the monthly fee. Is it right to be able to use a banking service without actually having to pay for it? Of course not. Believe it or not there are some people who actually believe that a bank makes money off our deposits. It may be true that if you have a CD they might, but not off a checking account where the customer lives from paycheck to paycheck. Some say they should not have to pay to use their own money. The thing is, it's not our money. If you make a purchase at WalMart, you are actually borrowing money from WalMart and WalMart then is paid through a third party from your bank.
Keystone XL pipeline has received a lot of attention lately. What most people don't know is that it's not the pipeline the protestors are against in DC. What they object to is the tar sands oil project in the Canadian Province of Alberta. They see the mining there as an environmental disaster. The problem is this, this is a CANADIAN issue and the President has no authority to shut down an oil mining project in the COUNTRY of Canada. Here are a couple of facts to consider. There are 7 billion people on this planet, there are a little over 300 million people in this country and we use 25% of the worlds oil. We need oil, regardless of where it comes from. We are oil gluttons, simple fact. We have less that 2% of the provable reserves on the planet, in fact if we stopped importing oil from all sources outside the US, we would have a 3 years supply, that's it, under current consumption rates. Canada (Alberta) provides us with 20% of our imported oil. Now, here is something you may not know. There is already a pipeline, Keystone 1 pumping oil from Alberta to St. Louis. This is a second pipeline, Case 2. Alberta's oil production is limited by pipeline capacity, just as the shale oil project, Bakken here in the US is. In the end, it will be the President's decision whether to approve the pipeline or not. Since this is a matter of national security, he will certainly sign it. But what if he did not sign it? What would the ramifications be? Well, for one, it won't stop the mining, which is what the tree huggers want. You see, Alberta also has Case 3, a pipeline to British Columbia to service China and the Pacific Rim in the works. So the Chinese would be getting the oil that was supposed to come here. The new refinery being built in Port Arthur, TX would have to be modified to accommodate a different type of oil, if possible. If we ever needed oil from a friendly source because we got cut off in the future, well, no pipeline, no oil. The point here is, protesting at the White House will have no effect one way or the other on the mining of the tar sands in Canada. It is a wasted effort. The complainers should go to Edmonton to voice their concerns. Given the fact that 1 in 14 people in Alberta are tied to the oil industry and that expected oil royalties from the mining is expected to reach a total of $335 Billion (CDN) by 2035, I would not expect a warm, polite Canadian welcome.
Citizen's United has caused quite a stir, but I doubt if many people know what the ruling really means other than the tag line the 'corporations are people too'. First off, corporations are taxed and regulated without representation, corporations cannot vote. The CU ruling does NOT affect direct contributions to a candidate or party by a corporation or union. The way the law was written, an individual could spend as much money for or against a person, party, platform or issue whereas a corporation could not. This means that George Soros or the Koch brothers could spend as much as they wanted, but not as a corporation. All the CU ruling said is that a corporation cannot be treated differently than a person. If a person can spend as much as they wanted on their own campaign for or against an issue, person or party, so too can a corporation or union. Now, if you limit corporation/union spending, then the only source of political campaign ads will come from a candidate or party. So say an incumbent in a safe district would have a distinct advantage over a rival without CU. Congress created this law and is responsible, not the Supreme Court.
The EPA and over regulation is another issue. When asked, what regulations are hurting business, you either get no answer or you get something like, Mercury emissions or Greenhouse Gases. The truth? EPA has no choice but to create and enforce these rules because they are under orders from the Supreme Court to do so. The mercury emissions law was created by Congress in 1990 and the regulations will be finalized this December of 2011. The greenhouse gases issue was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 2007 and the new rules went into effect in January 2011. What are the rules which kill business? 1) Only new builds will be affected by the rules. 2) Only major refits will be affected by the new rules 3) Small businesses are exempt from the new rules. Each state is required to issue a permit due to the different environmental conditions of each state, there is no blanket permit for all. Existing plants are not affected by the new rules. Now, where did the authority for EPA to regulate come from? The US Congress, that is where. The Congress creates laws which EPA must enforce.
Taxing the wealthy and business is a clear responsibility of Congress. The wealthy do not make tax law, Congress does. Business does not make tax law, Congress does. Don't blame the wealthy for paying the taxes they are lawfully mandated to pay. If it's not enough, blame Congress.
Why blame WalMart for buying from China if that is all we choose to buy from? WalMart sells products made from all over the world, but we will only buy at the cheapest price. So who is at fault? Is it WalMart for selling the product or US who wants cheap prices? No one wants to pay 'list' anymore. If this were true, people would not wait until Black Friday to get the best deals for Christmas. Why do smart people wait until the end of the month to buy a car knowing that dealerships push for those end of the month sales. Why bother have sales at all? It's because we want to get the best deal we can. We made WalMart who they are today. All WalMart is guilty of is providing us with exactly what we asked for, cheap.
Now for the big one, the biggest problem and the ONLY one we can fix. Congress.
If anyone watched Dylan Ratigan today on MSNBC and listened to Mike Williams who was running for Congress in Connecticut, who quit the race over money, you can get an idea how screwed up our political system really is. Does anyone remember when Hillary moved to NY to run for Senate? She could have gone anywhere and run, why? Money. She would raise millions for the party no matter where she landed. She was called a carpetbagger, which she was. Dennis Kucinich, it was speculated he would move to another state because his seat in Ohio would be lost due to apportionment after the census. It's all about the money. Who can raise the most, who has 'connections' to the party and lobbyists. In rare cases a new candidate can break through, but usually because there is no incumbent and their opponent does something really stupid. On the other hand, does anyone remember Carnahan in Missouri who was elected AFTER he had already died? What does that say about the Missouri electorate? What does that say about the electorate at large? What makes an incumbent's seat so safe that well over 90% get re-elected even when it is clear the Congress is absolutely responsible for the fix we are in? Why do we keep voting for the same incompetents? Congress has an 8% approval rating, yet nearly 100% of the incumbents will be re-elected. Doesn't this one question bother anyone? What is it they say about insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? Yet this is what we do. We make it so easy for the political parties. We are predictable and they prey on that. Because we let them. Who decides who runs for Congress? The party for one. If there is an incumbent you can forget any party help UNLESS you can bring in more MONEY. If there is no incumbent, the party chooses whomever can bring in more MONEY. If you are a Democrat wanting to run against a Republican in a 'safe' Republican district, you can forget any help from the party at all, it will be all on your dime.
If you have the chance to watch the movie, 'The Distinguished Gentleman', with Eddie Murphy, you can get an idea of how the process works.
So what is the answer? Campaign finance reform for one, but it will never happen, after all, the current system virtually guarantees re-election, even at the avg. cost of $1.2M per seat and where does the money come from?
The second solution is a lot simpler, but it will take a real change in voter activities.
People vote. People should vote. People should have a choice. The problem is the institutionalized corruption of the political system. There is only one way to put the brakes on. Toss the 435. What would be the ramifications if every single member of Congress was tossed out on their ear? For one, the House seniority would be in a shambles, the pecking order would no longer exist. Money would be less of an issue since the lobbyists would not know who they can approach to bribe. We would have a Congress of idealists not ideologues. The power base would be destroyed overnight. Replacing every member would mean fresh ideas, smarter people, connected to the people and not party. Maybe then we may get campaign finance reform and possibly term limits. We would have people who would put country first rather than party or special interests.
The truth is, Congress is the root cause for where we are today. The solution is to toss them all. So instead of blaming Wall Street and the banks and the wealthy or the Chinese, go after the people who truly are responsible. We cannot bring down Wall Street, but we can bring down the political system. So why not go after what we really can change?
