Thanksgiving! It's a God thing!

Happy Thanksgiving to all! This is a great holiday...the first one established by the United States in fact. It is meant to be a time of reflection and thanks where we look at our lives and thank God for all that we have. It is mostly about the turkey and football these days, I suppose, but truly celebrating it requires thanking God for something. Doesn't it?

At any rate, President Obama recently gave his Thanksgiving address. You can find it here. Now, I don't think Obama's critics need a real reason to criticize him. After all, he could say the sky is blue and his critics would criticize him for leaving out the fact that it can also be grey or white depending on the cloud cover. However, I think they have a point in this case. The speech is perfectly fine, filled with all the right platitudes, etc. However, it completely leaves out any mention of God, a divine being, anyone that might possibly offend someone. Therefore, I think the President made a huge faux pas here. After all, George Washington, in his address establishing the holiday in 1789 mentioned God in several ways. Almighty God, glorious being, beneficent author, and the great Lord and Ruler of nations are the examples I can easily pick out of the text. This clearly shows what the holiday was meant to be, a religious one, where people of all faiths should be thanking the creator. I'm sorry for the 1-4 percent of the population (depending on the survey) who claim to not believe in any kind of higher power. Perhaps you can watch football and stuff your face with turkey and ignore what the holiday is supposed to be about, much like a majority of people do with Christmas. Don't believe me about what this holiday really is? Here's the full text of Washington's proclamation.

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our sasety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

So, that pretty much says it all, in context. Oh, you think this violates the separation of church and state? Well, our founders clearly did not think that since it is one of the earliest acts this country performed. Besides, the Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, not from recognizing religious events or holidays. And no, unlike the Supreme Court of the past 50-80 years, I don't think they equate to the same thing. One makes everyone worship as the government sees fit, the other recognizes the importance of religion and religious heritage in life and in the history of this country. At any rate, let's not forget what Thanksgiving is truly about. Giving thanks to the One who created us.

I thank you God for the blessings bestowed upon me and my family. For being able to live in a country that recognizes the importance of faith. For being my guide, my comforter and most importantly my savior through the death of Your son, Jesus, on the cross. Thank you God. Amen.

A message to occupiers -- ALL Americans are the 1 percent.

The U.S. population of about 310 million people is 4.4 percent of the total world population of 7 billion people. This is an interesting statistic, but is even more telling when you reveal that the U.S. also controls 31 percent of the world's wealth. Most Americans aren't poor by the world's standards. In the U.S., poverty is a hardship, but in the rest of the world, poverty is a way of life. I say this, not to condemn America, for we have proven to be one of, if not the, most charitable countries in history, but to condemn those Americans who march and complain about the problems we have here without fully understanding the reality of those problems worldwide. Here is my story:

I was born into a poor family in the U.S, the youngest of three children. Life was hard on my parents growing up but they tried really hard to shield their children from this reality. My parents believe in education and individual responsibility and instilled that in their children, even managing to send all three to college at great sacrifice to themselves.

I was able to go to college and inherit an America better than the one my parents did, largely due to their sacrifices. I worked hard to grow in my life, personally and professionally, trying hard to live by the standards I'd been raised to believe in.

I married a first generation immigrant and rightfully chose to preserve her native language by passing it on to our children. We are a middle class family in America. The housing crisis hurt us and forced us to make sacrifices we would not have chosen otherwise. Fortunately, we live in a country that still values freedom, individual rights and responsibility, capitalism, and the rule of law.

I have been blessed with the ability to travel to several other countries. In doing so, I've seen what real poverty looks like. I grew up in the Washington D.C. area and had friends who had immigrated from countries where they were oppressed. Some of their stories were frightening.

I believe it is our individual responsibility to help others when we can as we see fit. I thank God that we live in America and that a place exists where a person can pursue happiness as they see fit.

I am a Christian...a father...a husband...an American.

I, like ALL other Americans, am the 1 percent.

If you live in America, have a roof over your head, have a car, a television, a phone, have at least one meal a day, have been vaccinated, etc....

then you are the exception worldwide and you too are the 1 percent.

I realize that the U.S. population is 4 percent, not 1, but the Occupiers don't seem to understand that they have little to complain about comparatively speaking. Sure, times are tough here, so imagine how the rest of the world feels. Again, this is to condemn Americans who see their plight and blame others for it rather than placing themselves in proper context, not to condemn America. In fact, I believe America is where it is because of our ideals and imperfections which are surprisingly unique in this world. The world needs this 4 percent if the 96 percent are to have hope for the future.

Price of freedom

Freedom of speech is not just the ability to say what you believe without political correctness or coercion but also to stand there and hear someone else shout at the top of their lungs that which you would adamantly oppose.

Freedom means to accept that there are some things beyond your control. That you can't stop every madman, that you can't stop every terrorist, and that you MUST stand up against those who would exchange your freedom for security from these threats.

Freedom requires that corporations be allowed to be just as charitable as people and just as corrupt as people. Society has a broad range of people and you can expect nothing less from other free institutions. There will be great corporations as well as ones that want to rip you off. There will be strong supportive unions who understand market forces and work to better their workers as well as the company they work for and there will be power hungry unions who care more about imposing their will on their workers, the company they work for but all persons as well. There will be strong freedom loving institutions as well as those who call for the end of every freedom we cherish. Having this spectrum is brought about by freedom. Desiring something other than this spectrum is actually supporting tyranny.

Freedom requires a sense of personal responsibility. As long as people believe they "deserve" something they haven't worked for and didn't earn simply because they are less well off than someone else, or because they were oppressed in the past or because they didn't have the same opportunities as someone else, there is no freedom. People will always think this way, it is called covetousness, but we make a mistake when we choose to say the role of government is to take money from one person and give it to another. This is nothing more than coercion or the government compelling you to do something. Freedom requires the act of giving or helping to be a voluntary one. Without the ability to choose what happens with your money, you can't choose which people you want to help. Nobody can help everybody, but we can all choose to do our part. Freedom is also accepting the reality that some will choose to do nothing. This is called greed and selfishness and it isn't illegal. It may be immoral and sinful, but that's only if you subscribe to a belief system that would call it that.

Freedom is recognizing that people have the right to be stupid! It recognizes that people will discriminate against other people. It means you fight with your last breath to point out these wrongs, but accept with your mind that you can't force people to fit into a mold and no matter how much legislation or government coercion you use, there will always be discrimination.

Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Modern America is closer to losing freedom than we've ever been. We've chosen to live with airport security and allow common rights violations by the TSA to secure freedom from terrorists. We've chosen to allow the continuation of the Patriot Act which targets specific populations and groups just to make ourselves feel better. We've chosen to expand the role of government beyond foreign and interstate commerce to allow it to control intrastate commerce in the name of what is right and just and to prevent discrimination and the use of substances we know are harmful. We've chosen to ignore the idea of personal responsibility and instead required the government to regulate behavior by coerced giving, coerced education and coerced speech (political correctness). We've chosen to slowly give up the very thing we claim to hold most dear. Our FREEDOM!

A Classical Liberals Response to the Occupy Wall Street, Zucotti Park General Assembly statement of solidarity

This was recently issued by a group of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) people and printed in several news sources as well as read by Keith Olbermann. At any rate, I print the full text without comment and then you will find my comments listed below it:

Statement of Solidarity, Occupy Wall Street, Zucotti Park
By NYC General Assembly, Occupy Wall Street

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together.
We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.

We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.

We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement,and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay andsafer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

To the people of the world, we, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. Join us and make your voices heard!

The statement issued from Zuccotti Park, by the General Assembly, at Occupy Wall Street.

It is hard to know where to start. This document purports to be a representation of what the protestors believe and want. If this is true, it is clear they are very dangerous, not because of what they believe, but because of their lack of knowledge. I will print the entire text again, but this time I will include my comments. Hopefully, once I've explained things as I see them, you, the reader, will at least have a better understanding of the lack of cohesion these people represent. Let me be clear. As long as they remain peaceful, I am not opposed to this protest movement. I dislike their tactics (blocking traffic, blocking workplaces, etc.), but I support their right to free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble. However, every time I hear one of them in an interview or read one of these "official" statements, I become more and more convinced that these people don't have a clue of what constitutes reality. Here we go!

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together.

First of all, these people do NOT represent me. They claim to be the 99%. This 99% number isn't even a real number. It is based on a political claim that 99% of the world's weath is held by 1% of the population. This is an untrue reality which actual numbers don't support. However, their claim that there are a bunch of wealthy people who have way more than they need is an accurate one, even if it is petulant. Then, they are claiming a mass injustice, yet lack any citations in their document or real explanations to back up the claim. They make several claims below which I'll deal with individually.

We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

Great! They "feel" wronged, so let's all go take over a park in New York to express our feelings. I'm fine with this as an emotional response to how they feel. You can't argue with people's feelings. However, feelings have nothing to do with reality. Time and again, research has shown that strong feelings actually hinder our ability to make rational decisions. Just because someone "feels wronged" by a corporation doesn't actually mean they were. Just saying.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people,

This sounds wonderful. In fact, it sounds like someone might actually be reading Jefferson, or perhaps just paraphrasing him, or worse yet, getting dangerously close to plagiarizing him. Nonetheless, I can, in principle, agree with everything stated here. However, we then move on to this:

but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.

What the heck is "true democracy" to these people? After all, in a real democratic system, a corporation has as much right to seek representation of their goals as an individual does. This is not giving "personhood" to a corporation, but rather expressing the reality that a corporation employs many people, anywhere from 1-however many the largest corporations employ and that the interests of those people and the company that employs them often overlap and are intertwined. A corporation's voice, along with the people's voice who work for it and even along with the union's voice can have much greater impact than just the employees voice alone. Union's often get it wrong when they go after the corrupt corporations (not saying there aren't some) but instead should work with those corporations for the best interests of the people who work there. Finally, the idea that corporations seek to extract wealth from people is ridiculous on its face. This statement assumes we don't have free will, that somehow, magically, corporations can get us to choose to buy their products when we otherwise would not do so. A smart person who knows their preferences and is smart with their money would never fall victim to corporate advertising. Who's to blame for you spending too much on a product? The corporation? No...it's YOU!

We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.

The idea that corporations run the government isn't new and this fallacy persists regardless of reality, so I won't challenge it here. What I will say is this. If this statement is true and corporations run our government, who do we have to blame? After all, while corporations do have powerful lobbyists, so do unions, charities, other countries, and many other groups. But who put the politicians in power? We did! Our votes did! If you have a problem with corporate influence on government, vote for people who want to get the lobbyists out of government, don't go down and block traffic in New York City.

We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

Peaceably assembled, sort of. They've been arrested on multiple occasions for disturbing the peace, blocking traffic and other such misdemeanors. Whatever happened to actually assembling, but not blocking traffic. Yes, it is their right to assemble, and I will support that, but our individual rights only exist up to the point where they effect the rights of others. Therefore, if you, in your assembly, are blocking the traffic and preventing me from getting to work, you are violating my right to pursue happiness and therefore, you are wrong. So, stay in the park and out of the streets. If you must march, get a permit like the rest of us so they can properly close the streets for your march. Now, keep in mind that when the word "they" is used below, this group of protestors is talking about corporations. Not politicians, not governments, not states...just corporations. That places all of this into context.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

Ridiculous on its face. You can't quote a couple of outlying cases that are being properly prosecuted as the norm. The norm is that the banks are following the foreclosure laws set in place by the various states and the federal government. You have a problem with those laws, take it up with your legislature or Congressman, but don't blame the corporations for following a law you don't like!

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

Taken bailouts? YES! With impunity? Really? I'm opposed to the bank bailouts, the bailouts of AIG, the auto company bailouts, etc. I don't like them, but impunity means exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss. You really think this? After all, I refuse to purchase a car made by GM or Chrysler as long as a single share is held by the federal government and as long as a single dollar remains unpaid. I've also started moving out of bailed out banks and into ones that didn't take any money. Rather than blocking traffic and dirtying up the parks, why don't you do the talking with your pocketbook! These companies are not operating with impunity. Besides, even if they were, you blame them for taking money given to them by the government? Who is to blame for that? Obama, Bush, McCain, Reid, Pelosi? ALL of them said we needed to do this to "save" our economy. Why aren't you blaming them?

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Whatever. While I don't want to minimize real discrimination that actually takes place, corporate America is better at combating this in the modern age than anyone and any country in all of history. So, while I agree this can still be improved, it hardly rises to the level implied in this statement.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

Okay, so who got sick from Listeria poisoning. Seriously? This is a demand of these people? Corporations don't intentionally poison their food and they try to avoid doing it by accident. After all, when they do end up with this and we discover the source, that source more often than not goes out of business because nobody will buy their product anymore. They have a good point here regarding farm monopolization and the harm that has been done to small farmers over the years, but this has been aided and abetted by government as well, so don't just blame the companies. Also, this point is lost because of the idiocy of the opening statement.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement,and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

Can the PETA members please stand up! Really? So, these protestors are all vegetarian or rather, vegan? Certainly not. One persons torture is another persons lunch here. Yes, I've seen Food Inc. and people have asked me, "doesn't this bother you?" No. As long as the food is safe to eat that is what is important to me. Otherwise, we are all going to have to start growing our own chickens because we won't be able to afford meat of any kind if these people get their way.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

And this is why the United States has the best working conditions and some of the best pay in the world. Not only that, but in the history of the world. Hard to take people seriously when they stare into the face of history and are proven false.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

Held students hostage? A human right? We have a human right to pursue happiness. If an education constitutes the method we choose to pursue that happiness, that is an opportunity we have the right to pursue. It is not, in and of itself, a right though. These people really believe that education is a right? What kind of education? I have the right to read voraciously and learn as much as I can, but do I have the right to attend an ivy league school and study under a particular teacher? NO! To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. As for holding students hostage, the government instituted student loan programs to help people go to college who otherwise couldn't afford it. So fine, let's do away with that and see how many people can go. A co-worker of mine recently stated "none of us is as dumb as all of us". This demand fits his statement well.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

Okay, they may have gotten this one right. Sure. But this is about economics, pure and simple. If you form a union and that union negotiates certain things for you, are you surprised that the company opens their new plant in a third world country where they have no such contracts? You haven't lost your job (or maybe you have), but the company can continue to operate. What sense does it make to require concessions from a company that eventually put it out of business. Yes, that has happened and yes, I know many companies are experiencing record profits right now. But those profits are used to help the company grow during good economic times and used to keep the company afloat during hard economic times. If you take away all of the profit, the company might not weather the storm and certainly won't expand. Without expansion, there is no jobs growth. Therefore, I'm guessing all these out of work occupy protestors don't actually want corporate expansion and job growth in our economy? Of course that's not true, but it is what they're calling for.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

The corporations made the courts grant them personhood? That's priceless! I'm so glad they could point out this overlooked piece of history! Oh wait, it isn't overlooked because it is a flat out lie.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They do spend millions of dollars on legal teams, not only to get out of paying what they owe but also to avoid having to pay the plethora of frivolous lawsuits that exist. Hmm...

They have sold our privacy as a commodity. They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

Okay, these seems like it is going to go well because companies are collecting information about us and selling it, so there is some truth there, but then they go and ruin it with this clearly untrue statement about using the military and police to prevent freedom of the press. Maybe in China and Saudi Arabia that is true, but it isn't true of corporations, it isn't true in America and it isn't true of corporate interests in China and Saudi Arabia. Where freedom of the press is prevented there is political tyranny and no freedom. So, they clearly can't distinguish the difference between political realities and economic forces. How sad.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

Deliberately declined? What do these people think, that we are living in the 19th century? The Consumer Products Safety Commission exists for a reason people. The federal oversight exists for a reason. There are recalls made and carried out on a regular basis. You might be able to claim they put out a dangerous product. You may even claim they knowingly put out a dangerous product even though there is no evidence to support that. However, you can't claim they deliberately decline to recall. That is simply untrue.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They certainly influence economic policy, but they don't determine it. That is, at best, a gross generalization of reality. As to whether or not the economic policies of companies are catastrophic failures would be a matter of opinion.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

Okay, up until a 2010 decision by the Supreme Court, corporations were severely limited on what they could donate to political campaigns and banned outright to donate directly to candidates for federal office. There hasn't really been an election since this Supreme Court decision, so what the heck are these people talking about? You see a lot about how such and such organization donated to a certain candidate, but that is usually an employee of that corporation donating to a candidate, not the company itself. This all gets lumped together in these so called open sites giving us information that is not entirely accurate. This demand seems to stem from nothing more than an untrue perception that corporations give a lot of money to individual candidates. That's simply not true. The ban on corporate giving to individual candidates seeking federal office is still in place. Do these people not even care to know the law?

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

This statement shows a severe lack of understanding of how the market works. For decades now, the federal government and many state governments have actually been giving incentives to companies and individuals for making or purchasing alternative energy products. If a company could figure out a way to make money on these products, they'd do it. The idea that they'd intentionally keep something off the market is ludicrous and paranoid. There are no consumers. There is no demand. That's why these products don't exist. Not because of some conspiracy amongst companies to keep them off the market. As for dependence on foreign oil, the two issues aren't even the same. We could be independent of foreign oil in a year if our Congress just had the will to stand up to the environmental lobby and say we would build more nuclear power plants, build more refineries and drill wherever we could. This won't happen. Not because of corporations, who'd love to do all three of those things, but because our government won't allow it.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

You know what? They have a point here. They do in fact try to prevent generic drugs from entering the market and this is entirely profit driven. A drug company has been granted the right by the government to profit exclusively from their drug until their patent expires. Patents are good for 20 years. So, the company can make a huge profit, but only for 20 years. After that, generic drugs are made and the price drops to a point where it is no longer very profitable. Of course a company wants to extend this as much as possible. However, we can't just remove this system entirely. It was set up, by the government not corporations, with the intent of encouraging drug research. Without this patent system, we'd probably all still be using aspirin for pain and penacillin for antibiotics. It is this patent system that has encouraged drug research and creation over the years. Sure, we'd still have some new drugs, but I submit there'd be far fewer than there are. Of course, some might argue that'd be a good thing too?

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They've purposely covered up a lot of things in the pursuit of profit. We've found yet more common ground. However, unlike these people, I'm not deluded enough to think they always get away with it. Exxon certainly didn't get away with what happened in Alaska and BP certainly didn't get away with what happened in the Gulf of Mexico either. Enron and MCI certainly kept faulty books to promote profit. Can anyone argue either of them got away with it? These people are having to pay reparations to customers and suffer in market share because of public perception. Not to mention that many of them are actually in jail! They are hardly covering all this up. I'm not naive enough to think this never goes on...of course it does. I'm also not naive enough to think that sometimes they get away with it. Sure they do, but they don't always get away with it and the more we catch, the more will be discouraged from doing it in the future.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

Corporations have control of the media? Well, that's one of the few true statements they've made so far. Yet, I suspect they are aiming this criticism not at the media in general, but at FoxNews specifically, also known as NewsCorp. Based on their other "demands", that's just how they roll. They probably aren't criticizing Disney (ABC), GE (NBC), Time Warner (Turner Broadcasting or CNN) or Viacom (CBS). I could be wrong, maybe they think ALL of these companies are secretly trying to instill fear and misinformation in the people. Hmm...if that's the case, maybe they have a point.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

I'm not even sure what to say here. This sounds like a paranoid rant and certainly needs a citation to back it up. What the heck are they talking about? Murdering prisoners by contract killing. Really? As for perpetuating colonialism, they'd get a lot more interest from me if I could stop laughing enough from the statement of perpetuating colonialism at home. Can someone please explain to me how one would do that? Let's all form colonies within our own borders!!!! In the end, this is just a paranoid rant with a stupid statement mixed in for good measure.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

Last I checked, governments and tyrants were responsible for the perpetuation of weapons of mass destruction, not corporations. Also, governments and tyrants are directly responsible for torture and murder, but I have yet to see credible evidence of a corporation doing this. The mafia maybe. Drug cartels certainly. But actual corporations? Nope...wrong again.

To the people of the world, we, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Yes, we agree, and I'm asserting mine by pointing out your lack of education!

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

Again! We agree, I call it the Constitution of the United States. What do "they" call it?

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. Join us and make your voices heard!

So, they want to work with Tea Partiers who support our Republic? Oh wait, no...they said "direct democracy" which actually means doing away with republicanism in favor of one man one vote. Alrighty then. So they are in effect, advocating the elimination of our representational government? Really? Think I read too much into that statement? Think again. After all, look at their closing statement!

The statement issued from Zuccotti Park, by the General Assembly, at Occupy Wall Street.

They've formed a general assembly? That's a government folks. This group has basically stated they no longer consider our government legitimate. Think I've read too much into it again? Look at this. They've created their own government, called for direct democracy over representational republicanism, declared the corporations corrupt, and stated the corporations are the government. These people don't want change or reform. They want revolution!

What to do about federal social programs?

So, I was having a conversation with a friend about whether or not the governmnet should be involved in social programs. My position was that it is not the proper role of the federal government, that we should rely first on family, then on our local church/synagogue/whatever, then on charity and finally on local and state assistance. I did not include the federal government because I sincerely believe this is not their role. Her reply to me was heartfelt, so I will try and respond to it as best I can. It is quoted below:

What do you propose in place of those programs? Everyone says the church should do it. But it's not satisfying that need either. I would LOVE it if none of these programs were necessary, because it would mean that people were doing right and good by each other and truly looking out for and loving their neighbors.

Civilization will never ever work that way. There will always be greed and ugliness, and stomping on the meek... So what do we do with those who truly are "down on their luck".

I was so against these programs until I needed them. When I was suddenly thrust onto my own 2+ years ago, when my marriage ended, I had been at home for 8 yrs, raising and schooling my children. I had skills that i had, thankfully, kept up and even grown during that time. But I had no job and no place to live.

During the worst economy in years, i was competing with everyone for a job. I could not even get seasonal work at Barnes and Nobles! I applied any and everywhere. Dumbed myself down. Built myself up. Short of getting on a pole or corner, I did everything I could. I am grateful my parents were willing to take me and my 4 kids in for the time that they did. But that created an additional burden on them. My (your former ;) ) church helped by getting the kids school supplies and clothes that year (which still makes me want to cry to think about) but I still had no money for my car payment and insurances. I think being in that situation was one of the biggest catalysts for starting my journey. My ex and I had been totally broke at a couple of points in our marriage due to his poor money management and decisions and control that I had no say in.

I wonder if, you would see these programs differently in my shoes? It's so easy to sit back and say someone will take care of it all. But it doesn't work that way.
At least not in my case...

This is a very good question and it comes from the heart.

First, let me state that this friend actually followed the road I pointed out as the preferable one. Family, church, then government assistance. She stated again that "Only by several safety nets (church, family AND government) did I survive." It is fortunate that her family and church were able to help out and I'm glad there was assistance available to her from other resources as well. My argument has never been that welfare should not exist, but instead that it should not be a part of the federal government. Instead, it should be enacted by each state individually to assist their citizens as they see fit because to do so at the federal level is unconstitutional, even if we ignore that fact for our own convenience. Also, I argue that charity is much better at performing this function than government ever could be. In 2008 (I use these numbers because I wanted to use numbers for the same year and these are the ones I found first), Americans, who are a very generouse people compared to other countries in the world, gave 307.5 billion dollars to charities. That same year, the federal government spent 354 billion dollars on welfare programs. The Cato Institute did a study several years ago and determined that 70 percent of the money was spent on bureaucratic overhead. In contrast to that, the average overhead by charities in about 16 percent according to a Forbes study. This pretty much proves that charities are significantly more effective than the government. This of course doesn't even consider the additional bureaucratic hardship the government imposes or the fact that government ends up wasting a lot of their money on people who don't really need it because they are required by law to treat all comers equitably regardless of circumstances. It is all about numbers rather than actual hardship. Finally, I argue that welfare should be a leg up and not a hand out. She used it as a leg up to help her get through a difficult time. I commend her for her strength.

This next part might come off as heartless, but I assure you it isn't intended that way. I completely understand that she was distressed by the additional hardship her situation placed on her family/parents. This is a logical reaction. Nobody ever wants to cause pain/trouble/heartache/etc. for those they love. However, I submit that this is exactly what family is for. We may not want to burden our families and we may not enjoy the emotional state this causes, but it is exactly what we must do. Isn't it great that we have family to lean on in times of trouble? I realize that not everyone has this, but this is and should be our first line of defense in hard times.

Next, I want to point out a statement I read in a book once. The summary was this: that if we want to end poverty in America, we should focus our efforts on single mothers. If we took care of the single mothers in our society, we'd almost eliminate poverty in the U.S. It was an interesting book, the title of which I can't remember right now, that pointed out a lot of the problems with government assistance and advocated that charitable organizations were much better. However, I submit, based on these findings, that we should focus our efforts on the plight of single mothers in this country. How exactly to do this, I don't have an answer for.

On a slightly different note, we've (as a country) tried a lot of different things that have worked or failed to various degrees, but it seems to be the mentality in our government that even if a program is an utter failure, we can't get rid of it and start from scratch or see if the various states can do a better job because somehow we'd be hurting X(fill in the blank for whatever group the politicians want support from) where x can range from children to single women to the poor and on and on. Social programs aren't about helping the poor but instead about figuring out which group will vote for me if I give them money. Social programs are about buying elections. It is just a more civilized way of doing it than driving down the street handing out money.

My contention that the states should be allowed to set up their own programs (or not to set up one) is that the states could do a better job. How can politicians know in Washington, DC what is best for someone down on their luck in Seattle and decide to take money from someone in Virginia to solve the problem they can't even properly define? It is best that people in Washington State figure out ways to help those down on their luck in Washington State. One of the great things about the form of government our founders established is that it allowed and expected that the various states would prove to be an incubator of ideas. If one state tried something and it failed, the other states were unlikely to copy it, but if a state tried something and had massive success, then other states were likely to try something similar. By relying on the federal government for the last 80 years, we've moved away from this model and killed the opportunity for social innovation that should exist and created a system of one size fits all that generally fits hardly anyone.

At this point, I think I've addressed the points my friend was earnestly concerned about. However, I will agree that family alone can be insufficient, that churches aren't doing as much as they could, that we need more charities working harder, etc. However, all these things are better at helping people than the federal government has shown itself to be and I will continue to support elimination of federal programs and the creation of state programs. Of course, we have to ween people off federal programs. We can't expect anyone to start taking care of themselves when they've become reliant on these programs.

My platform or What I'd like to see a President do

Every person has their own set of things that are important to them. They'll focus on a single issue or support their traditional party or whatever. Unfortunately, my experience is that most people don't know what they believe and so can't make good informed decisions about who to vote for. Therefore, I decided that I should define what I want to see in a candidate rather than allow the candidates to define the debate. That way, right or wrong, at least I know what I believe and can therefore make an informed decision about which candidate comes closest to my platform. Below are the major issues as I see them and what I'd like to see a President do regarding them:

1. Comprehensive energy strategy
Drill baby drill (yes, even in ANWR)
Build many more nuclear power plants
Continue investments in solar, wind, etc.
Invest in energy infrastructure
Do NOT regulate carbon emissions but support carbon sequestration efforts
Reduce foreign importation of oil to no more than 20 percent
2. Shrink size of government starting with unconstitutional agencies
Return airport security to airports and airlines
Abolish TSA and Dept. of Homeland Security
Abolish Environmental Protection Agency
Abolish Dept. of Education
3. Bring troops home
End Iraq War and bring all troops home
Remove troops from Germany (we aren’t defending Europe from the Soviet menace anymore)
Remove troops from DMZ in South Korea
4. Stop behaving as world’s police
The army and air forces shouldn’t be spread out everywhere…use navy to project power
5. Submit Constitutional amendments to the Congress for:
The doctrine of incorporation (applying the Bill of Rights to the States)
To allow States the ability to override and nullify federal mandates
Term limits for the House (8 terms … 16 years) and the Senate (3 terms … 18 years)
6. Taxes
Raise taxes on rich by 5 percent
Make middle and lower class Bush era tax cuts permanent
Restore inheritance tax but increase minimum amount to 5 million dollars
7. Change Welfare programs into a leg up system rather than a hand out system
8. Keep Social Security as is for anyone 50 and over and establish a new system based on the Chilean model for everyone under 50
9. Comprehensive transportation policy
End government subsidies of Amtrak while supporting private investment in high speed rail
Inspect and repair all interstate roads and bridges
Remove barriers to road funding (like federal mandates on speed and drinking age)
10. Secure the borders
Build the fence
Enforce existing laws
Change immigration policies to make it easier to come
Decrease wait times
No Amnesty, but those who are already here may apply for status without retaliation
11. Continue policy of supporting freedom around the world
This requires a willingness to butt out that we don’t currently have
Supporting freedom means opposing tyranny no matter how strategically important
12. Economy
Reduce bureaucracy and regulation on corporations, especially small businesses
Eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Cut spending (this will happen if the agency eliminations and other things I’ve stated take place)
Discontinue monetizing debt
Pay off foreign debts before reducing taxes
Balance the budget
Support free trade efforts around the world
13. Increase the number of representatives in the House of Representatives
Legislate a total number of paid staff allowed per Congress member to control costs
14. Abolish all “Czar” positions
Only official agencies can be appointed
ALL appointees must be approved by the Senate
15. Rescind all written Executive Orders that go beyond the scope of activities in the Executive Branch
16. Appoint a commission to study the history of Supreme Court cases
Any instances of judicial activism are to be submitted to the Congress for legislation or as constitutional amendments…if they do not pass, they are to be abolished
17. Lead efforts to reform the UN to abolish WWII model and replace it with a new model
18. Health Care
Abolish the 2009 health care legislation commonly referred to as Obamacare
Lead efforts to create common sense legislation that understands the difference between health care and health insurance and minimizes the role of government in the decision-making process
Allow for denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, but only when changing insurance is a choice of the consumer, not because they were dropped or changed jobs
Getting the government out of health care (Medicare) would significantly reduce overall costs but is impractical at this time. Reform Medicare significantly over time for new recipients, but do not reduce coverage for current recipients
Not require anyone to go on Medicare if they are employed and have insurance or are happy with their current insurance
Medicare should cover things that other insurance does not, not be a comprehensive program
19. National Security
Strengthen the CIA to be able to identify and counteract threats from abroad in conjunction with the FBI domestically
Abolish the Patriot Act

Sports history? Probably not...

Most people probably wouldn't think of this weekend as a particularly historical one when it comes to sports. However, considering my history of rooting for teams that don't perform well, especially not all at the same time, I'd have to say this is a pretty historical weekend.

I am a real fan of only a few teams. The Braves, the Redskins and Baylor University. Sure, I root for hometown teams, but these are my loves. That said, the Braves are leading in the wild card race in the national league, while both the Redskins and Baylor's football team have started their seasons 2-0. That might not be particularly remarkable that any of these things would be true, but as a long time fan for all of these teams, I have the feeling that it is pretty remarkable that it would be true all at the same time. The Braves started their great run back in 1991. The last time that Baylor started 2-0? I don't know exactly, but I can say with certainty that they were 5-0 in 1993. The Redskins won the Superbowl for the last time in 1991. So, Baylor was pretty good back in the early 90s, the Redskins won the Superbowl back in '91 and the Braves started their great streak back in '91.

As you can see, for a fan of these three teams, I pretty much have to go back to 1991 to find a time when I could cheer for all three teams and actually hope for a win. It is premature to say that any of these teams will perform well. The Braves haven't won it yet, the 'skins aren't expected to continue and Baylor wasn't expected to win more than 3 games by the preseason prognosticators. Nonetheless, regardless of the outcomes of the seasons for any of these teams, I've had a pretty good couple of weeks...sportswise.

The U.S. Constitution - part 9 (Article 6)

DEBTS, SUPREMACY, OATHS!
This is a very important article to the Constitution. It has been used in all sorts of ways to justify all sorts of things, specifically under the Supremacy clause. However, let's examine just what this says for a minute. The text states:

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

First, it states that we are going to pay our debt. Come what may, the United States will pay their debt. This clause is specifically referring to the debts incurred by the government under the Articles of Confederation, but it clearly shows how important paying the debt was. The founders knew their fragile new nation would have to have good credit if it were to survive and so they promised to themselves and future generations that any and all debts owed by the previous government would be honored. When did they pay off this debt you ask? In 1835, under Andrew Jackson. In fact, the total debt incurred by the provision was 75 million dollars. A LOT of money back then.

Secondly, the famed supremacy clause. This makes it clear that the Constitution is the law of the land and that all properly ratified treaties (this has to do with States representation in the Senate discussed in an earlier post) were the clear law of the land. So, the Constitution and all treaties bind the states. Seems fine. However, the statement in the middle is where things get muddled. It states that all laws of the U.S. in pursuance thereof, meaning, in pursuing the supremacy of the Constitution and treaties, are the supreme law of the land. What this does NOT mean is that ALL laws of the U.S. are supreme. This is where many judges, politicians, lawyers and laymen have gotten it wrong. They've used this clause, which actually binds judges as well as states, to justify expansion of federal power by stating the federal government has the right because of the supremacy clause. This argument completely ignores the individual state constitutional conventions and the ninth and tenth amendments, all of which clearly show a desire to "limit" the power of the federal government, not give it a supremacy clause that would allow it to get away with anything it wanted.

Finally, the Constitution requires ALL public officials throughout the land to be bound by oath to the said Constitution. Yes, ALL public officials. This statement: "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States," says Senators, Representatives, and all executive and judicial officers, thereby making all public officials at the federal level. It goes on to say that the members of the state legislatures and the executives and judicial officials of the states are also bound by oath. So, ALL public officials. Don't you wish they'd actually pay attention to this on occasion? They may take an oath to defend it, but they generally corrupt it to suit their own ends.

Then, to top off the clause, there is that last statement about religious tests. The founders were very concerned about this because it was a common tactic of suppression in the colonies to require religious tests. Catholic or protestant colonies all made use of this at some point and the founders knew this was a dangerous practice. Remember that this clause was written before the Bill of Rights, so they really wanted to make sure that religion was not a determining factor for public service. This would be a foreshadowing of the debate around the first amendment, I suppose.

The U.S. Constitution - part 7 (Article 5)

This is an easy one. It is pretty straightforward in fact. Here's the text:

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Several interesting things to note however. One, most people don't even know there are two ways to amend the constitution. Yet, there it is in black and white. So...if the states get tired enough of federal tyranny, all they have to do is get 2/3 of them to agree to call a convention. I am not an advocate of this method because I'm afraid it could be highjacked by special interests. However, it remains law.

Secondly, there is that interesting clause about how no amendment can amend certain parts of article 1 before a certain date. Another black stain of compromise on the constitution since those clauses deal with slavery.

Finally, it states that no State shall be denied its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. This clause clearly shows that the Senate was intended to be how the individual states kept their wishes known by providing "suffrage" to the states through representation in the Senate. The Senate was never intended to be voted on by the people. That is why we call the House of Representatives, the "people's house". However, the states did choose to give their consent to this with the seventeenth amendment.

I wonder how many of them realized just how much they were giving up when they agreed to that?

Is the internet helping or hindering individual thought and expression?

I had this thought the other day and couldn't help but wonder about it. After all, the internet has provided greater access to information, better methods of retrieving information and instantaneous access to many friends and family that we would have lost contact with in the past. So how could the internet possibly stifle thought and expression? It seems to have done more for both than anything before? Then I think about it some more and wonder...

Social media gives more access to people and what they are doing, thinking, etc. than anything we've ever had in the past. Television couldn't do it, newspapers couldn't do it, etc. However, it also allows the user, that's us, to significantly customize our experience. We choose our friends. We set stringent or lax security options. We like things we want to know more about. We basically surround ourselves with only the information we want to know. This severely limits what we might accidentally come across. In the newspaper and television ages, there was never such a thing as an unbiased media...however, it was possible to come across opinions and thoughts that were contrary to our own. Sure, our friends provide the occasional stimulating conversation, but most people don't want to actually think on Facebook, so they are more likely to unfriend someone who talks politics and defends their positions better than they are to actually think about their own. This is just a thought process post entirely. Any comments on this is welcome.

Pithy slogans, words to live by apparently!

This (Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bail outs, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither… Pass it on.) is going around the internet right now and MoveOn.org would like it to go viral according to their blog post here.

So, let me set the record straight for everyone who would rather listen to policy wonks than think for themselves. First of all, this post was originally a tongue in cheek post that I saw months ago protesting the Republican cuts to the federal budget. So, it is really about funding priorities. That said, here are some additional comments to consider when reading this post.

First, teachers are public employees, so the writer isn’t very smart to begin with.

Second, Planned Parenthood hasn’t done any of the things eluded to by the author, they are just directly responsible for the death of nearly a million unborn children every single year.

Third, NPR and PBS are largely funded by contributions and telethons. Only 11 percent of their budget comes from public funding…therefore, they don’t actually need tax money to operate and survive, it just makes it easier for them.

Fourth, the stock market is fickle and can crash because an elk sneezed in Zimbabwe, so this is kind of a useless point to anyone who understands the stock market.

Fifth, my wiped out 401K is well on its way to recovery and when it was down, I was able to buy additional shares at lower prices, thus once the recovery is complete (and it will be), I’ll be in a better position than I was beforehand.

Sixth, the trillions in taxpayer funded bail outs were passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by Bush (a conservative in name only) and Obama (a liberal Democrat)…therefore, who is MoveOn trying to blame for bailouts here? Sure, the Republicans supported them too, but didn’t have the power to stop them even if they had the will.

Seventh, the oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico by BP was a tragedy. The official report determined the causes to be a combination of factors including a breakdown of procedures, a lack of proper oversight, and failure to properly maintain equipment. A tragedy like this can be avoided and should have been avoided. However, we are fortunate that the impact, both environmentally and economically, wasn’t worse than it was. Also, since MoveOn is pushing this, are the liberals trying to blame this on the Republicans and conservatives? Maybe so. Think about it though. Tradition in this country is that the fault of something like this is directed at the administration in office at the time. Huh…a liberal Democrat. Strange, you’d have thought it was Bush.

Eighth, the corporate bigwigs who gave themselves billions in bonuses answer only to their stockholders who often must vote to approve such bonuses. That is the essence of free enterprise. I don’t think they should get that kind of money, I’m just saying that is how it works. The reason there is a problem with this at all is because a company that took bailout money proceeded to give big bonuses. This is one of the BEST reasons why corporations should NOT get bailout money from the government. If it makes mistakes and screws up to the point where it needs bailing out, it should fail. Our government still hasn’t figure this out yet.

Finally, paying no taxes is not the norm. In fact, the most prominent example of this in recent years is GE. The post makes it sound like a LOT of people and companies aren’t paying taxes…this is simply untrue. GE did not because they got a whole lot of tax breaks for their efforts in producing green energy. Hmm…doesn’t MoveOn support all these tax breaks for "green" efforts? Wonder why they are now so against this (GE not paying taxes) since it is a direct result of policies they support? Convenient huh?

So just try to think about reality for a moment. Pithy statements are funny and can be effective in advertising campaigns and as campaign slogans, but they remain insufficient for anything more than that. Remember, ad campaigns and campaign slogans are trying to do one thing and one thing only. Sell you something you may or may not want or need. That’s all this slogan is doing. Selling you a point of view, that, as it turns out, isn’t even a very well thought out one.

Just ignore this

Okay, not really a blog post, but something for a game I play, so everybody can just ignore it :)

Just how much trouble are we in?

So, I've been having discussions lately with family and friends regarding U.S. debt and fiscal policy. I can't stress enough to them that we are in horrible trouble. None of them seem to want to hear it and they certainly don't grasp how severe the problem really is. Let's take a look at some of the numbers.

An article in the Telegraph today (strange that I have to go to foreign sources to get this because none of the U.S. news sources felt it was newsworthy on the same day the President will make a speech about the debt), they discussed a report from the IMF (international monetary fund) about the debt of the "advanced economies" also known as the G20. The full report discussed in this article can be found here. Basically, this report says the U.S. is in the worst shape of any of the G20 with the possible exception of Japan and that we must cut 1.7 trillion dollars from our debt to return ourselves to sustainable debt levels. The current debt is 14.2 trillion dollars and climbing. So, the IMF is saying what exactly? Basically that we need to cease deficit spending entirely and reduce our debt by an additional 1.7 trillion dollars...immediately. Well, this can be achieved, right? Let's take a look at our budget numbers.

Under GW Bush, we ran 8 years of budget deficits totalling 3.368 trillion dollars, which is an average of 421 billion dollars a year. This does not include off budget items like Social Security. Now, with 2 budget cycles under Obama, we have a total deficit of 3.183 trillion dollars averaging 1.591 trillion dollars a year. Look at these budget numbers. In 8 years, Bush racked up 3.3 trillion in debt. In two years, Obama has increased that debt by an additional 3.2 trillion. I guess that is the change we voted for, but it isn't what anyone wanted.

So, in the last 2 budget cycles alone, we are adding 1.5 trillion dollars a year to the deficit. In the previous 8, we added 421 billion dollars a year to the deficit. This means, that to meet the IMF's goal, the U.S. must cut the entire 1.5 trillion in deficits we are facing EVERY YEAR. However, that just gets us to even. We still need to cut an additional 1.7 trillion dollars from the debt. Therefore, no more deficits, plus cutting 1.7 trillion dollars. This should bring some perspective to the debt argument in Washington and the President's speech tonight. After all, the Republicans are calling for cutting 6 trillion dollars over 10 years and the Democrats are countering with a 4 trillion dollar cut over 10 years. Remember the numbers I just presented above? Will either of these strategies meet the goal stated by the IMF for sustainable debt? After all, we must cut 1.5 trillion in annual spending plus manage to cut an additional 1.7 trillion dollars. Over ten years, that equals 16.7 trillion dollars! Yes, 16.7! No way either of these two plans comes anywhere close to that. Congress is still completely oblivious to the real problem, their addiction to spending.

Women's NCAA basketball decisions are interesting

Something interesting happened this year in women's college basketball that I bet a lot of people didn't notice. Of course, maybe everyone noticed and since I don't have cable of any kind, I just didn't hear about it. Nonetheless, I found it fascinating that this year, the NCAA set up the top two number 1 seeds to fail. What do I mean? Well, probabilities are wonderful things. No matter how good a team you are, if you play the same team often enough, they can figure out a way to beat you at least once. You see this kind of thing in baseball all the time. After all, do you really think that a 57 win team can beat a 100 win team? Yet they do it, at least once a season (usually).

Now, I find it fascinating that UCONN and Baylor both beat teams in the own conference three times during the regular season. They both won both regular season contests and they both met again and won the conference championship game. Uconn vs. Notre Dame and Baylor vs. Texas A&M. So...move to the elite 8 where Baylor lost to Texas A&M while playing them for the fourth time this year. Everyone expected Baylor to make it to the final 4 if not the championship, but A&M (a very good team in their own right) managed to figure out how to win one after playing them 3 times already. I actually predicted this would happen when I first learned the NCAA had placed them in the same bracket. I figured A&M should have to at least make it to the final four to get to play Baylor again, but no...the NCAA felt differently. At least A&M proved they belonged in the final four by beating Stanford.

As for UCONN and Notre Dame, well, UCONN did the same thing during the regular season and conference championship as Baylor had done. They won. However, in the final four, Notre Dame managed to figure out a way to beat UCONN. Only Stanford had done it all year and only Baylor had come close, so this is unheard of, but you have to remember the law of averages. 4 times in one year?! At least Notre Dame had to earn it by beating no. 1 Tennessee and get into the final four.

Now, I don't want to take anything away from either team in the final...Texas A&M lost 5 times all year, 3 of those to Baylor and one to Duke so they are an excellent team in their own right. Notre Dame also lost 3 to their conference champion UCONN, but they did struggle a bit more, losing 7 overall. However, all of their losses came against ranked opponents whereas one of A&M's losses came against an unranked Kansas State team. All this said to say I believe Texas A&M will win the NCAA championship this year. That'll make the Big 12 happy, even if it isn't from the expected source. Baylor fans have much to look forward to next year as 4 of their starters, including Griner are only sophomores and freshmen. As for the others? UCONN loses their top player, A&M loses their top player and I'm not sure about Stanford and Tennesee's rosters. Nonetheless, it should be a good final and a fun season next year.

How to fix Wisconsin

I came up with an idea the other day that I thought I'd share. It seemed to me that you have a lot of vilification going on regarding the events in Wisconsin. I'd like to share a bit of context to the issue and then share my idea.

First, unions are not inherently bad as one side likes to claim. They serve a very important purpose, protecting employees from large corporations. This, in my opinion, is and should be their primary goal. However, when a union represents employees against a corporation, that union is trying to get a bigger slice of the "corporate pie" which is solely made up of the profits of the corporation.

Second, public sector unions do not serve this same goal. Sure, they represent the workers and protect their rights. Here, public sector unions are useful. However, there seems to be a disconnect in the debate in Wisconsin. One side seems to think unions shouldn't exist at all in the public sector while the other seems to think the legislature does not have the power and authority to limit union activity. Both happen to be wrong. Nonetheless, public sector unions are not seeking a greater slice of the "corporate profit pie" as private sector unions do. Instead, when they are negotiating a contract, they are asking for a greater slice of the "tax income pie".

This is not the same philosophically. One seeks a greater portion of what they've helped produce (the profits of a solid company and product) while the other seeks a greater portion of money from the pockets of the people in that state whom they serve. In one case, you can argue that the laborers have a right to a bigger piece of pie, but I am not certain you can make that same argument regarding public sector unions. It seems to me that the people who are represented by the legislature have every right to determine how their tax dollars are spent.

So...with that in mind...I propose that all collective bargaining agreements by public sector unions be approved in a referendum. Union members vote to approve the contract negotiated by their representatives, so why shouldn't the taxpayers of a state get to vote on the contracts negotiated by their representatives (being either the legislature or other entities working on its behalf). This seems like a fair and equitable way to resolve the issue in Wisconsin. After all, in such a referendum, there would be little on either side to complain about once the outcome was final.

Just thinking out loud

I've been thinking lately that we don't seem to have improved much over our last President...so I got to thinking about how Obama is different than Bush and just couldn't come up with much.

After all:
Obama is withdrawing troops from Iraq on the exact same time schedule put in place by Bush...

Obama is fighting the war in Afghanistan in all the wrong ways (this is different only in that they fought it differently, but neither of them fought it right) while Bush fought the war in Afghanistan in all the wrong ways...

Bush spent lots of money unnecessarily and bailed out corporations while Obama spends tons more money unnecessarily and bailed out corporations...

Bush had an unprecedented expansion of government with the Dept. of Homeland Security while Obama has had an unprecedented expansion of government with the health care bill...

Bush messed around with health care by creating the Medicare drug benefit that doesn't do anything and Obama is messing around with health care by passing a massive health care bill that doesn't do anything good (yes, this is opinion)...

Bush was slow to respond in New Orleans and didn't use his bully pulpit to great effect during the crisis thus hurting the people of Lousiana while Obama waffled regarding the oil spill crisis and didn't do anything, especially not using the bully pulpit, thus hurting the people of Louisiana...

Bush kept interest rates artificially low thus causing the housing bubble and Obama has kept interest rates artificially low in conjunction with unprecedented levels of printing money thus risking a money bubble...

Bush exerted executive privilege to keep things secret and Obama holds closed door meetings that nobody talks about to keep things secret...

Bush passed tax cuts to stimulate the economy and Obama agreed to extend those same tax cuts to prevent slowing the economic recovery...

Bush couldn't speak very well and tended to say stupid things while Obama doesn't speak very well off script, tending to say stupid things.

REALLY?! What are the differences between these two Presidents? I came up with a few.

The differences:

Bush gave bad speeches that said nothing and that nobody listened to while Obama gives great speeches that speak volumes if people bothered to listen to them...

Bush acted decisively for good or ill in regards to international crises while Obama pussy foots around and waits to "see what develops" before acting on international crises

Bush won praises from the every man because it came off sounding just like them while Obama won a nobel prize because he came off sounding just like the elites

Bush cultivated our relationship with Britain while Obama scoffs at our relationship with Britain

Bush, for good or ill, spoke strongly on the international stage while Obama, for good or ill, apologizes for the U.S. all over the international stage.

That's about it. Feel free to make more of these comparisons for either same or different in the comments section.

Must the President defend the laws passed by Congress?

A friend of mine asked me to weigh in on this question. "Can a President refuse to enforce a law? If not, what recourse does...who...have? Doesn't that give him de facto line item veto?"

So, here is an attempt at a well though out response. This obviously came up because of Obama's recent refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but he wanted a theoretical answer, not a diatribe for or against Obama. So, here goes.

First of all, the constitution vests the executive power in the President but does not clearly define that beyond some specific powers listed later. Often, those powers are used to determine the constitutionality of executive action, but do not always provide clear direction. However, also in article 2 is the oath of office which states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It can be interpreted that protecting and defending the Constitution includes defending and upholding the laws passed by Congress. However, as with most things in our government, it isn't that simple.

This article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, presents an interesting view of executive power as defined by Justice Jackson. In the interest of full disclosure, Jackson is one of my least favorite Supreme Court justices because he expanded federal power at the expense of the constitution on many occasions in my opinion, but this argument is quite good for this situation.

The argument was made in the Steel Seizure case and basically goes like this: according to Jackson, there are three levels of executive power, the "maximum", the "zone of twilight", and the "lowest ebb". These are defined by Jackson this way: the President's power is at its maximum when he is exacting power that Congress has granted, the zone of twilight is when the President is doing something that he has not been specifically granted to do, but that he also receives no opposition from Congress on and finally his power is at the lowest ebb when he is acting in a way contrary to laws passed by Congress. Jackson doesn't argue the President doesn't have power here, just that it is tenuous. I would argue the President has no power here, but I tend to disagree with Jackson.

Now we come back to article 2. The oath of office clearly requires any President to uphold the constitution. Therefore, if Congress passes legislation that the President believes to be unconstitutional, it is his duty not to enforce it. This can obviously change with each successive President as their opinions on what is and what is not constitutional will change. So, in the case of the DOMA, Clinton and Bush obviously had no problem with it, defended it in the courts and directed the Justice Department, an arm of the Executive Branch (the President) to uphold and enforce it. However, Obama's announcement makes it clear he finds it unconstitutional and therefore he won't enforce it. If someone else is elected in 2012, they can choose to enforce and defend it once again, so your remedy is through the ballot box, but Congress can't force the President to enforce an unconstitutional law. This is actually the essence of separation of powers and deserves a seriuos discussion, which it won't get because of the law in question.

Now, one final point in regards to DOMA. Marriage laws have always been established by and through the states and DOMA was designed to allow the states to act as they pleased in regards to marriage rather than having to recognize a marriage their laws considered invalid, so the constitutionality of this law rests on the Constitution again. Does the full faith and credit requirement of the constitution make this law unconstitutional and therefore require states to act in ways contrary to their laws? That is the real question here and it is the as yet undecided constitutional issue. The Justice Department had been maintaining it was constitutional but now they will not defend this in the courts. However, the states can still sue or nullify as possible remedies assuming we all still want federalism. In the absence of federalism, we have no further recourse beyond the ballot box.

Funny Florida Laws

So, as with anywhere, there are a lot of laws in Florida that don’t seem to make any sense. Both local laws and state laws that just make you go hmm… So, for your entertainment, here are some of those and my immediate impression of them. Do remember that it is likely that many of these would not be illegal if someone hadn’t done it. The source for these laws is http://www.stupidlaws.com/ so I do not speak to the veracity of these laws, but only my impression of them on the assumption they are real.

State laws

1. Unmarried women are prohibited from parachuting on Sunday under the penalty of arrest, fine, and/or jailing. Don’t ask me why this would be true. Apparently, married women can parachute, just not unmarried ones. What gives?!
2. Doors of all public buildings must open outwards. I’m guessing sliding doors and revolving doors must not be defined as “doors” in this law?
3. Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal. I have to admit I agree with this law. Besides, wouldn’t it hurt?
4. If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle. So, who left their elephant tied to a parking meter? Because I’m sure this came about because somebody did it and contested the ticket in court since they weren’t operating a motor vehicle.
5. It is against the law to dream about another man’s wife or cow. First of all, how do they enforce this law and second of all, what is he doing dreaming about the cow?
6. It is against the law to put livestock on a school bus. I can’t even imagine how this came about.
7. It is illegal for men over 60 to wear yellow ties while singing the national anthem. What, are we afraid of the old man gangs? Who knows.
8. It is illegal to block any traveled wagon road. I think it is about time to challenge this and go out and place blockades on all the wagon roads. Oh yeah…there aren’t any.
9. It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a bathing suit. I’m guessing this has something to do with drunk college students and spring break.
10. Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown. So, a guy can wear a dress, just not a strapless one? What? Too much chest hair?
11. The penalty for a horse theft is death by hanging. I guess Florida never quite got out of the old west days? So, we can steal a car and get jail time, but don’t you dare steal a horse.
12. Rats are forbidden from leaving the ships docked in Tamp Bay. I just want to know…what do they do to the rats that break this law and how do they even know if “this” rat came from a ship?
13. The state constitution allows for freedom of speech, a trial by jury, and pregnant pigs not to be confined in cages. This is why the state changed the constitution to require a 60 percent vote to pass a constitutional amendment because before that, everything could be an amendment, even keeping your caged pigs out of their cages if they are pregnant.
14. When having sex, only the missionary position is legal. Whatever.
15. You may not fart in a public place after 6 p.m. on Thursdays. Umm…but it is perfectly fine the rest of the time?
16. You may not kiss your wife’s breasts. What’s with this one…so…what…you can’t kiss your spouse’s breasts, but what, can you kiss someone else’s breasts? Whatever.
17. Hunting and killing deer while swimming is illegal. How would one even do this? If you are shooting at it while in the water, I’d wager you are sinking, not swimming.

Of course, local laws and ordinances are sometimes some of the funniest things you can ever imagine, so I’m including some of them as well.

Local laws

Cape Coral – A $50 fine will be levied on anyone who allows a couch to sit in their carport. So, I guess Cape Coral must have quite the couch leaving epidemic. How could we possibly think this is a problem unless the couches are just left there to rot.
Pensacola – A woman can be fined after death for being electrocuted in a bathtub because of using self beautification utensils. I’m not even sure what this means, but I’m pretty sure the electrocuted woman (also known as dead person) won’t care if she gets fined.
Seaside – All houses must have white picket fences and full-width, two-story porches. This sounds like the perfect example of a homeowner’s association run amok.
Key West – Chickens are considered a ‘protected species’. I’m pretty sure they serve chicken on the menu, so I’m guessing there is some sort of wild chicken running around the Florida keys? Otherwise…
Pensacola – Citizens may not be caught downtown without at least 10 dollars on their person. Really?! Why not!?
Miami – It is illegal to park your elephant on 8th street on Sundays after 1 p.m. So, did the guy who got the fine for parking his elephant in the first place also bring this law about by parking it after 1 on Sunday? What’s with this?!
Destin – It is illegal to sell ice cream in a cemetery. Really?! This is where the vendor thought they’d see enough traffic to make money? I guess someone thought we needed to make this illegal to protect people from their own stupidity.
Miami – It is illegal to imitate animals. I guess this is intended to keep the animal imitators from getting shot by hunters or eaten by alligators?
Miami – No one may bring a pig with them to a theater. Having lived in Miami, that pretty much says it all.
Tampa – Women may not expose their breasts while performing a “topless dance”. I guess it wouldn’t qualify as topless then, so…I’m confused.

Show me the money!

So, this image shows, from 1981-2012, how much money our government has spent versus how much money it has taken in. Anyone else notice a problem here? First of all, let's be clear about one thing. The Clinton era appears to have brought in more money than it paid out, which was true as long as you continue to raid the social security "trust fund" (not that that really exists anyway). However, if you remove social security from this chart, the Clinton era surpluses disappear and all the rest of them look even worse than they do now.

However, let's ignore that for the purposes of this post. So, how did each President do in regards to the budget and spending overall. Well, technically, all of them failed because not a single one of them managed to spend less than was brought in throughout their Presidency. This chart is in percent to GDP in order to be a more accurate representation of reality since the total numbers we generally talk about tend to get lost in the discussion. What does this chart show.

First, it clearly shows that Reagan increased spending during his first several years. This was largely on defense and (for those of you who didn't live during this time) was for the purposes of trying to outspend the Soviets to try to force them to keep up with us. It also shows, that in 1983 when the economy was pretty bad and tax revenues dipped, Reagan cut spending. Now, it did bump up some after that, but by the time he left office, it was significantly lower than what he'd inherited. Of course, he was having to work with a Democratic majority in the House (the Republicans had the Senate), so both parties deserve some credit and blame here, but Reagan had ideals that the budget had to be reigned in and the government had to be smaller. He had to compromise with the opposition on many things, but did, I believe, start a trend. However, Reagan's average still has him spending 4.2 percent above GDP over his 8 years. An improvement for sure, but not enough. Of course, much of this spending was on defense, which eventually ended up bankrupting the Soviets in their efforts to keep up, so you take the good with the bad I guess.

Next was Bush I. We'll all remember the no new taxes pledge that was quickly violated. It is of note that revenues went down each of his 4 years in office while spending went up. You could attribute much of that spending to the Gulf War in the early 90s, but considering the large tax increase that was put in place by the Democratic Congress (the Democrats regained the Senate so had a majority in both houses as of 1988) that Bush then signed into law, you'd have expected a different result. Instead, revenues decreased. For those who look at Keynesian economics and scoff, this outcome is entirely consistent and expected. There is a fine line between the amount you can tax and increase revenue and the amount you can tax that decreases revenue because of decreased production in the economy. Keynesians ignore this principle, but it is a valid one, often overused by Republicans to justify tax cuts, but still a valid principle. Now, to be fair, there was a recession at the end of Bush's term which likely cost him the election and would have certainly decreased revenues as well. However, even with the decreased revenue and increased spending, the Bush I years still did better as an average than did Reagan, spending only 4 percent more GDP. I think this is largely because he only had 4 years by which to compare. The trend during his Presidency suggests that he would have fared much worse than Reagan if extrapolated out to 8 years.

Then came Clinton. He campaigned on his ability to reign in spending which won over many independent voters. He then went on to prove he could do it. He decreased spending as a percent of GDP every year he was in office while revenues rose. This is generally how things are supposed to work. Right now, we know that his policies created the dotcom bubble and generated more deficit spending on the part of average citizens than ever before, but those policies continued into the Bush II years. Plus, since the Republican "revolution" of 1994 swept the majorities of both Houses for the first time in 45 years, Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress to enact almost anything. Therefore, as with Reagan, the Republicans and Democrats must share the credit as well as some of the blame for what happened in the 90s. So, give credit where credit is due. The 90s was this generations equivalent to the 20s. Still, Clinton, over his 8 years, still managed to average .8 percent greater spending than revenues. Headed down the right path, but he needed more time I guess?

At any rate, Bush II took power and everything changed. We slipped into a recession, we cut taxes (probably more than we needed to), 9/11 happened...a pretty bad hand to have been dealt if you ask me. Still, spending and revenues were relatively stable in the first year. It was only after the tax cuts, 9/11, two wars and massive federal expansions in Medicare and with Homeland Security and TSA did the spending start to balloon. All this while revenues had dropped because of tax cuts and a recession. The tax cuts were supposed to help the recession and some evidence suggests they helped a little, but that isn't the point. Revenues dropped significantly. Republicans did abandon the principles that had won them elections in the 90s. Specifically, smaller government and less spending. They achieved neither of these goals during the Bush years. Is it any wonder the electorate turned on them in 2006. That said, Bush's spending was remarkably consistent during his Presidency. The Democrats took over Congress in 2006 so from that point on they have to share in the credit/blame. Amazingly, it seemed that the Democrats were on the right track, cutting spending in 2007, but then the economy tanked (which had been predicted by many but ignored by politicians). It was at that point that Bush's spending went up...this was the Bush stimulus plan which stimulated nothing. The Bush Republicans embraced Keynsianism along with the Democrats while the rest of us (some Democrats, many Republicans, and a LOT of independents) shouted NO. Amazingly, Bush's average was only 2 percent above revenues but this was largely due to what had been achieved during the Clinton years. Even so, Bush's spending was still significantly less than the amount of spending that took place during Reagan's first 3 years in office.

When Obama came in to office, he had a Democratic majority in both houses, which continued until the 2010 elections gave the House back to Republicans. This means he had 2 budget cycles where you can't blame anyone but Democrats. So, what happened. The first thing you'll notice is that spending jumped from about 21 percent of GDP in Bush's last year to nearly 26 percent of GDP in Obama's first year. That is all on the Democrats and it is all a result of two fallacious beliefs. One, that the New Deal worked (several studies have recently shown this to be nothing but a myth) and two, that Keynesian economics works. The fact that they never have worked for a prolonged time anywhere in the world seems to be lost on them. So, I believe Democrats are sincere in what they are doing, they are just sorely mistaken in the principles they are using to guide their actions. Now, 2010-2012 are nothing more than estimates, but I submit that 2010 is a pretty good estimate. The reason it has to be estimated is two fold. One, the 2010-2011 budget year isn't complete and so the exact numbers aren't yet known, but two, the Democrats didn't bother to pass a budget in 2010, so we are working off last year's budget with a few changes thrown in. The fact is that we aren't bringing in anymore than 2.5 trillion in revenues, so 3 trillion dollar budgets are irresponsible. We can also note that the President's budget for 2011 is 3.7 trillion dollars. This doesn't do anything to cut spending in reality. Additionally, the spending increase in Obama's first year alone turned back every bit of progress we'd made since Reagan took office because for the first time since 1983, the spending of GDP was above 24 percent. Again, this is all on Obama and the Democrats. The Republicans never spent this much when they were in power, even fighting 2 wars. We justify this spending with arguments the government must spend us out of recession using a keynesian approach. This has resulted in artificially low interest rates, increased printing of money, deficit spending beyond anything we've seen since world war II and the need to increase the national debt limit for the second time in 2 years, even though this President himself rightfully declared on the floor of Congress in 2006 that having to raise the national debt ceiling was an indication of a failure of leadership. Therefore, it is no wonder the voters kicked the Democrats out of the House in 2010. They can see, just as much as Obama could in 2006, that we have a failure of leadership. They can also see that this spending is unsustainable and will bankrupt us. Just this year, social security lost money for the first time in its history. This was several years before that was supposed to happen. Federal spending isn't going to make things better, it is going to drag everyone down with it. Sure, every President is guilty of this as demonstrated in this graph, but the current administration has exponentially compounded the problem.