The BIG LIE about CU is REVEALED

I have grown increasingly frustrated with the deliberate ignorance and BIG LIe that is the argument against the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision. It time that I stop trying to educate individually, rather to take a broader approach with this blog. First let me state that I am no ideologue, I am a life long Republican, but rarely vote for a Republican unless they are deemed by ME as being worthy of my vote which has become a rare occurrence to say the least. I am a center-right voter. What was CU all about? A little history. The McCain/Feingold campaign reform law place limitations on the amount of money a person or corporation could spend on an individual candidate or party. When it came to issue ads, individuals were allowed to spend every dime they had. An issue ad is one that CANNOT be coordinated with any candidate or party. This is an ad that as an individual you want to throw your support to a candidate or party as a private person. PAC's, which are corporations were, by law, limited in their ability to create an issue ad as there was a financial limit to what they could spend. What CU was about was a PAC, which is a corporation created an infomercial attacking then candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC cried foul as the CU PAC's broke the law by over spending. CU objected and filed suit claiming an infringement of 1st amendment rights of the people who were part of that PAC, a corporation. The Supreme Court agreed. So what was the effect of CU on elections? Now some claim that it means the Koch's and Adelson's of the country were now free to 'buy' an election. This is just not so. These individuals could have always spent unlimited amounts on issue ads PRIOR to CU. So let us put that one to rest. CU had nothing to do with individual's right to spend unlimited amounts of money on issue ads. So lets look at the effect of CU on the last election...Karl Rove's PAC (a corporation)spent $125M to defeat Mr. Obama and install Mr. Romney as President. How did that work out for them? Adelson spent a like amount as an individual for the same purpose and what was that result? So here you have $250 MILLION spent to 'buy' an election and what happened? Complete and total failure. So how can the CU ruling be a good thing? Here is a hypothetical for you to consider. Prior to CU, if David Koch wanted to create an issue ad supporting an anti-environment candidate and the Sierra Club (a corporation) wanted create their own ad, they were limited financially. They could never match Koch's money legally. AFTER CU the Sierra Club can fight him on equal footing. The playing field is leveled. Now this is but one example. Now for those of you who think in terms of say, Walmart being a corporation, which it is and they decide to support some extremist candidate or cause, it would be corporate suicide. First, the board of directors would have to approve the expenditure. Now, do you really think Walmart is going to put their stock price in jeopardy by doing something so stupid? No, they won't. The stockholders would never stand for it. Sure, they may not be known by the FEC, but the SEC would know they spent that money. Look, corporations have lobbyists who are much more effective for the money spent. Why bother with a crapshoot like an election?

Spending...spending...spending.... a solution.

For years the amount of government spending has come under public scrutiny, as in it's way too much or out of control. The problem with that logic is the premise. The premise being, no one really knows what the hell they are talking about. It's easy to say cut the military, cut finding for this and that. Unless we know what it is that should be cut, the perception is simply, cut the whole thing across the board. Of course, this is a fools errand. No one person it seems really knows where ALL of the funding goes. Unlike business, government is guided by law, which allows for certain responsibilities of any given agency or department. The second part of course is funding those responsibilities which is a completely separate issue. The next part of the puzzle is the difference between the needs of that agency or department and the political desires of politicians.

I will try to explain the problem. Let us say Congress creates an law that is responsible for building a bridge to nowhere. Of course, this tidbit will be buried in some other legislation that has national security or other mandatory issues and will pass no matter what. So now this agency is formed with a small budget to establish and man it minimally. Once the ball gets rolling, money is required for pre-construction, permits, other government agency rules and regulations to be implemented. Money is required for design. Say the agency finds an architect that will do the job for say $1M. A Congressman thinks it's not enough and thinks some other firm can do the job for $10M, so pressure is applied (funding threats). The Congressman has a vested interest in his district where the job is going to be accomplished. So instead of taking the guidance of the agency, someone sticks their nose in the deal and the price goes up. The same applies down the road until the project is actually built, or becomes so expensive that it is scrapped and all that money is wasted.

This sort of thing happens all the time, especially when it comes to military contracts. Such was the case for the second engine for the F35, the engine manufacturer was based in Mr. Boehner's district. The USAF said the engine was not needed or wanted, yet Boehner insisted. In the end, the engine was scrapped, but this was the exception rather than the rule. Military contractors are sacred cows, not so much for the military, but the politicians who want to keep their 'friends' happy.

So what is the solution? Transparency in the process would be a great start. A line item veto would be acceptable. Maybe the way funding legislation is written would be a better way to go. What if each department creates it's own budget based upon it legislative authority, that budget is approved by the top level department and that budget is sent to Congress for funding with a simple up or down vote. The Congress then votes on a locked budget without any given member tweaking any part of it. If approved, then the funds are released to the top department for disbursal. If the Congress votes down the budget, which the only possible reason would be it's too much, they can kick it back asking for say a 5% reduction and leave it up to the department(s) to find the savings and they resubmit the budget. Or Congress can simply approve a lower amount, but not higher.

As it stands now, it would take hundreds of accountants, taking each expenditure into consideration to find out where the money really goes. For us to just say, cut this and that means we too have no clue as to where the money goes. Would Congress be more effective by voting on a department budget without investigating  who they buy paper clips from and at what price?

Virgin Mobile - The Nightmare

Recently I purchased a Nexus 7 tablet, a truly wonderful device. At home I have TW cable internets and according to Virgin they have 4G INSIDE. So I thought I would purchase a WiFi hotspot from them, that way I can be mobile with my internets and my tablet can be used anywhere. Sounded good on paper. Well, I made the purchase online and received the device. True enough, it worked well except no 4G INSIDE. I pondered the situation and after some thought, since it did not do what it was advertised to do, I decided to take advantage of their 30 day money back guarantee. This is where the nightmare begins.

I called Virgin and a voice, best termed as 'not of this country' greeted me. I explained the situation and wanted to get an RMA to return the device. This after jumping through all of the 'hoops' to get a real person. After 4 tries, as we kept getting cut off, I was finally able to explain to the 4th person what it was I wanted to do. Now, I don't know about you...but the only reason why you should EVER be put on hold is if you don't know what you are doing. If this is the standard, none at Virgin does. I was told I would receive my RMA in an email. Hours later, no email. I called back again. This time, I decided to talk to someone in 'Tech Support'. This person appeared to know what he was doing. He explained the reason why I did not get an email was because the request was rejected because they did not include the original order number. He asked me for it. I said, 'don't you have it?'. To expedite matters, as I already had it handy, I gave it to him. An hour later I had my RMA and the next day, I shipped off the device to the address provided. I was told that my credit card would be credited with 24-72 hours. The device was delivered on Friday and on Tuesday next, no credit. So I called again. Asked to speak to a supervisor, I was told, they had not received it. So as requested I divulged the tracking number. Sure enough, it was delivered. Duh. Well, I was then told that I would be receiving my refund within 24-72 hours. The next Tuesday, no refund. I call again. This time I am transferred to a 'Specialist' after I was told that I should not be calling back because it takes 4-10 business days to issue a check. Yes, I went a little ballistic.

The specialist calmed me down a bit and issued a trouble ticket and asked for my number, he would call me back with in 24-72 hours to see if I got my refund. Well, he called on Thursday and I told him that I had not yet received it. He said I should call my bank in Alabama and make sure. I told him I was already online with the bank and it was not there. After he gave up arguing with me, he said he would upgrade the trouble ticket and call me back the next day. He called me back, no refund yet. He resent the ticket. Saturday he calls me and tells me I am not going to get a refund!!! At first he said that the serial number I sent back was not the one they sent me. You can imagine what I said next. I read off the invoice the serial number they sent. Then he said I could not get a refund because the device was in use. I said to him, how can it be in use if I sent it back and you have it in Indiana! You admit you have it. I told him, the problem is not with me, but them. Something very wrong with Virgin. What can't these people think I asked myself. I looked up my Virgin account and he was right, data has been used AFTER I sent it back. I told him that the only ways there could be data used is 1) Someone knows my password and took it home from the warehouse or 2) Someone in Indiana backdoored the device and reset it back to default and they have it turned on. In any case, I do not have it, you do. Then I suggested, if the criteria for denying my refund is that it's in use, then the solution is simple, disable the account! He said, 'Oh, that would work'.

Today is the Monday after that Saturday conversation and still no refund. I am waiting for his call, maybe tomorrow. Whatever the case, this rant is going to be posted as a warning to all.

I don't like Romney..but

The revelations of the past few days has shed more light on Mr. Romney. I will admit that I don't like the guy for a variety of reasons.

Tonight's 'interviews' only tend to prove beyond any doubt that this man has his secrets, he will justify everything and is in denial over his past statements regarding Bain. There is no doubt now that he and his campaign staff have decided to play the deflection game because if he exposed the truth, the damage would be worse than not admitting to what he actually did. As long as there is no definitive proof, a smoking gun other than what we already know, he can deny anything and everything and accuse others of speculating.

The question we all must ask ourselves is simply this. Given the secrecy of his past and his unwillingness to produce his tax returns, this should give us pause. Can we trust this man with the fate of 330 million people? Are his other qualifications and other possible intangibles overpowering enough to over ride common sense? I think not. He may claim to know how to fix the economy based upon his business experience, but his whole experience is making a profit. Not job creation, but creating wealth. This is not the President's job, to create wealth. This is all he knows. Government is not a business. Government cannot be run like a business. Imagine 535 members of a board of directors and him trying to accomplish what HE wants. This is not the way the real world works.

The biggest concern we have is simple. Given his propensity for going with the flow means he will succumb to the pressures of the Tea Baggers, just like Mr. Boehner. This is his pattern. To this day, he will flip flop on any subject. Look what happened with the penalty/tax issue of just last week. His whole Presidency will be just like this. He will go with the flow for political expediency.

Is this really the man we want in the White House?

President Romney's first week in office....

The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years. 


As a recap, what has happened in the last week. 


The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things. 


A 20% increase in the defense budget. 


The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration. 


Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level. 


The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states. 


Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources. 


As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed. 


Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections. 


To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated. 


The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue. 


There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.


The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President. 


And this is just the beginning.......

Mitt Romney...Can he turn things around?

The Romney campaign has made a lot of noise, how he is a job creator and has the business experience to turn our economy around. Frankly, I am not convinced he can do this. My reasons are fairly simple. Mr. Romney's focus has always been to make a profit, regardless of the costs or the risks. Risks. This is the key. In Romney's business world he and his com-padre's would buy a corporation and sell off the individual assets and take the write-offs for the ones left over to offset the profits they made off the sale of assets. To some this is called 'Vulture Capitalism'. This is a fairly easy thing to do if you have the money behind you. The system is rigged to take advantage of this sort of operation. This is the basis for Mr. Romney's argument that he is a businessman, a job creator as the primary function of Bain Capital. This could be further from the truth. Bain's focus was to make money, increase wealth without creating one single job. Now, I am not complaining as to what Bain was doing. But to suggest that Romney is somehow qualified to turn the economy around based upon his vast business experience is misrepresenting reality.


Think of the US government as a giant corporation and you were Bain Capital, what would you do to make a buck? First you would identify those parts of the corporation which are the money makers and money losers. Can you imagine trying to sell off parts of the government to reduce overhead and costs, to bankrupt the losers and sell off the money makers? This is the experience Mr. Romney has. How this equates to government escapes me unless he plans on privatizing the parts government he can  and selling them off. 


The bottom line is this. Romney's plan would be to cut all money losing programs, essential or otherwise. If it's losing money, get rid of it. Then he can cut taxes across the board to match what has been cut loose. One thing is certain, people like Romney have no conscience when it comes to real people. Imagine sitting in a meeting at Bain Capital when a decision is made to shift a financial responsibility from one company to another then bankrupt that company, causing those employees to lose their jobs? Do you really think anyone stood up and said, 'what about the people?'. There is an old saying, Business is business, nothing personal.


The question we have to ask is this. Should we risk our future on a person who is risk averse, or do we maintain the status quo? The economy is clearly on  the rebound as it is. If it wasn't, then maybe we should look for change. 

Gay Marriage..my thoughts

Much has been made lately about who has come out in support or against gay marriage. I too have some thoughts on this issue, of course.


Firstly, a little background. I am almost 60 years old. I was raised at a time when the gay issue was not an issue at all. For all I knew at the time, a gay person was about as rare as an albino. It was suggested that a gay person was somehow defective, some still believe this today. As I grew up, living in Yankee states and California my exposure to gays increased as more people came out of the closet. I was stuck with a moral dilemma. I took the stand that while it was not for me, I would not be 'against' the gay lifestyle unless it affected me personally, in other words if I got 'hit' on. My toughest struggle was when my young son came to visit me in California and the couple who lived next door to me were gay. He, coming from the bible belt in Florida. I faced a tough problem. How do I explain to a child the situation when he told me that two men were holding hands and kissing each other? How do I explain it to his mother in Florida what my response would be and not catch flak for it? Needless to say, I punted and told him that they were gay and in love, other than that I don't know anything. In the same apartment complex, there was a mixed race couple who were living together, he never questioned that. Not so many years ago, mixed marriages were frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. Certain minorities could not move in next door to you. Times change. 


It is understood that everything is legal, unless there is a law against it. When we see states which have state laws specifically forbidding such things as gay marriage, one has to question why. The answer, whether we want to admit it is simply a moral issue. Where does morality come into play? Organized religion. The next question of course is obvious, if a state creates a law against gay marriage based upon religious morality, then there is a problem between separation of church and state. I admit, over the years I had not considered the difference between the two, secular and religious. When I excluded the religious argument against gay marriage, the clouds parted and the sun shone bright. If you exclude religious morality, which is not consistent across the religious spectrum, then what is the secular justification for denying gay marriage? There is none. If gay marriage were allowed, what would the ramifications be? From a secular point of view, there is none. Equal rights for all, not special rights.

If a state were to allow for gay marriage, this does not compel a church to perform that ceremony. Marriage is still a state issue, not church issue. No person or church has any right to decide for someone else what their live's should be, nor should they be able influence an outcome that frankly is none of their business. What right does a heterosexual have to decide for someone else? 


The Catholic church is clear on this issue. The church see's homosexuality akin to mental illness and should be treated as such. The church is against gay marriage because in the eyes of the church, the whole reason for marriage is for procreation, which of course is not possible with gay marriage. While the church is tolerant (according to the Catechism) towards gays, the church is adamantly against the lifestyle. One could argue that procreation outside of marriage is against their god's will as well. 


When New York was considering a law allowing for gay marriage, the swing vote came down to a Republican Senator, who voted for it. When asked why he voted for gay marriage, his answer was simple. "I cannot find a legal reason why not." When you think about it, that is the best answer one can give. If you consider that we are a secular nation and not one run by religion, then that answer fits just fine. 


Time does change things.


So to all, on the issue of gay marriage, what secular reason can you find to defend the ban against it.