The Budget War

What a miracle! The President and the Congress managed to come to a historic agreement at the last possible minute. Yeah, right.

To quote from a movie I really like, "I haven't seen that kind of dancing since Star Search". It's pretty clear to me that both parties are playing the public opinion game. But, why all the drama? Is it really that hard to do the right thing? Why is it so difficult?

What was the basis of the argument? The Democrats want funding for Planned Parenthood, and the Republicans don't. The Republicans claim that this is a back door way to fund abortion. I don't know if this is the case or not. And, as with many of these political debates, this is a distraction from the real issue at hand.

For me, the real issue is the budget; end of story. We cannot keep spending at the levels that we are spending at today. We need a balanced budget amendment, and we need it now.

I digress ...

We need to get to the root of the problem. While I have not identified the root cause (yet), I think I have identified a key motivation in this case. The initial budget battle was over Planned Parenthood. Or, more generally, the battle was over this kind of funding. Democrats believe that the Federal Government should fund organizations like Planned Parenthood. Republicans are against funding these kinds of organizations.

The question is why would the Democrats want to fund Planned Parenthood? Well, this organization (and others like it) are part of the coalition of voters that the Democratic party has put together to keep themselves in power. These folks (not just the democrats) know how to take advantage of polling data. And, they know (and are confident) they can manipulate a good percentage of the public's opinion; certainly those who believe in Planned Parenthood (for example).

The battle ground has been established. Democrats need the support from people who endorse organizations like Planned Parenthood; its one of the pillars of their political empire. The Republicans know this, and, they know that eliminating funding for these kinds of organizations will reduce the political influence of the Democrats. After all, without the funding, there is no political influence.

Now we can see what is motivating both the political parties. It's all about power (see Servants or Masters), and, it is not something as noble as "doing the right thing". Let me be clear here: both parties are complicit. That would also explain the drama over the "working together" theme that has started to come out of the media.

Planned Parenthood is a charitable organization. Why would they need funding from the Federal Government; particularly if most people believed in what this organization was doing? Wouldn't the public gladly donate to such a worthy cause? There are a tremendous number of charitable organizations, which are able to exist today without government funding. So, what does that tell us? It tells us that if we left organizations like Planned Parenthood to normal charitable funding models, they would cease to exist. Isn't that what evolution is all about: survival of the fittest?

Planned Parenthood, and other charitable organizations like them, are being treated like endangered species. They are given protection and funding from the Federal Government. And, this, I believe is the key pattern to our budget problems. We simply cannot afford to fund every "pet project" that comes along. Specifically, the Federal Government should be focusing on doing things that benefit society as a whole.

"For the People" indicates to me that all the people should be treated fairly and equally. I don't see how funding organizations like Planned Parenthood (with tax money) is in the best interest of "We the People".

Why does the Federal Government feel the need to get involved in Social issues? Shouldn't the Federal Government be focusing on ensuring that all citizens are treated equally? Well, how does funding something like Planned Parenthood do that? Oh, I know, if it were not for programs like this one, the poor would be disadvantaged. Well, that is the definition of a charitable organization. And, there are well established models for these kinds of organizations.

I still do not see the justification for the Federal Government's involvement in funding organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Now, I believe we can get to the root cause. Programs like Planned Parenthood target specific issues within society. I am not going to debate the worthiness of these organizations. But, I want to point out that these organizations would probably die from natural attrition, if they were left to normal charitable funding strategies. Let me put it to you another way. Imagine that everyone got to pick their favorite charitable organization; such that the government would be forced to support all of these organizations. Is this really scalable? No way. So, it must be a business proposition: the Democrats get political support, and the organizations get government funding.

We are a charitable species, for the most part. We do not want to see people suffer. And, this is precisely how "We the People" are being manipulated: guilt. We saw a perfect example of this recently. I was absolutely shocked at the media portrayals of those who apposed the funding of Planned Parenthood as "heartless".

{Begin Rant}
I find this kind of journalism to be disgusting (see Is the Head Dead Yet?). When a journalist switches from the facts at hand, to supporting their personal charities, then that journalist is not doing their job. If people (including journalists) feel strongly about the plight of a particular charity, then, instead of trying to encourage "we the people" to encourage government funding of the charity, these "noble people" (or elitists) should reach in their own pockets and give until they have nothing left to give.

But, you see, these "noble people" are not doing that. Instead, they want the power to reach into another person's pocket. How is that being charitable?
{End Rant}

If, as a celebrity, you want to encourage donations to your favorite charity, I think that is great. But, if on the other hand, you are using your status as a celebrity to encourage political support for a political party, based on the fact that the political party is supporting your charity with government funds ... well ... that's not charity.

If a charitable program does not provide equal benefit to each and every citizen, it has no business being funded by the Federal Government. Rather, these organizations should be made to stand on their own merits. And, if they are not able to get funding through conventional methods, then they should go the way of the dinosaur.

The budget war is just getting started. And, I must say, I am not encouraged. If you read my "I Want" blog, you can see the behavior I described there is evident in this case as well.

I saw in the newspaper that President Obama plans to tell the nation how he is going to reduce the budget deficit. Well, since you (Mr. President) are the one that let this deficit get out of control, it would be nice if you actually took responsibility for the out-of-control spending. But, somehow, I suspect that this speech is going to be "spin", and not based on facts. After all, the truth does not seem to matter; its all about perception. I also find it ironic that the administration that caused this budget deficit is now claiming they know how to fix it. I keep hearing echoes of President Reagan saying "Tax and Spend ...".

I have no intention of letting the Republicans skate on this issue. Make no mistake, I for one voted for my congressional representative based on a desire to get the spending under control. This is my number one issue. That said, I found out that my congressional representative voted with the Republicans on the last two budget votes. Be warned: you are up for election again in 2012. And, if you cannot get the job done, we will elect someone who can.

I have to say I am very disappointed in the lack of resolve in the Republican establishment. Not to be crude, but it is time for you to collectively "grow a pair" and do what needs to be done.

I call this a budget war, because the outcome of this war will be just as devastating as any war. The key casualty of this war will be the US Dollar. Oil prices are approaching record levels, and so are international exchange rates. If we lose the budget war, I fear the US Dollar will collapse and take the American way of life with it.

God have mercy on us.

Send Arms

Are you the parent of a college student? Ever see the signs on the college football or basketball games, where the students say something like "Hi Mom - Send Money"? Well, I see a pattern.

I think it is obvious that I do not support American involvement in the Libyan conflict; I made that clear in my "Full Spin Ahead !!" blog. Yet, it seems that the rebels in Libya are asking for all kinds of assistance. And, since the American government (particularly this administration) has still not learned its lesson, I am sure its only a matter of time before we start sending "assistance" to the rebels. Oh, it will be legal - I am sure this administration will see to that. But, I think there are bigger questions that need to be asked here:

• What kind of assistance is being provided?
• Are we planning to send weapons of any kind?
  
• Who will the "assistance" really be used against?

I mean, what happens when you send "assistance" to a country like Libya? Do we make them sign Non-Disclosures and Service Level Agreements? Do we make them sign contracts as to who they will use the "assistance" against, and, more importantly, who they WILL NOT use the "assistance" against?

Can we really trust rebels from a foreign country?

Well ... we trusted the Afghanistan rebels, and we ended up with 3,000 dead Americans.

What's to say that the "assistance" is not going to make its way to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or to the southern border of the United States. Think I am being an alarmist? Well, of course that is what this administration will say; they do not like to be questioned. But, since this administration doesn't seem to have a very good gauge, when it comes to assessing the risks to the American people, and, the American press does not seem to be interested in doing their job (checks and balances and all), I think this is a legitimate question.

Look Mom! I'm a journalist! ;-)

My point here is that we need to be very careful. This administration clearly disregards the voice of the people; believing that the average American to not smart enough to understand complex issues. And, to this end, this administration has demonstrated that they do not necessarily think through their plans of action (both healthcare reform and financial reform come to mind). So, I am being proactive with my opinion. Since I know that this administration likes to keep things simple, I will keep it simple. I don't see how we can trust the rebels, since we really do not know who they are. Therefore, based on past experience, arming rebels is a bad idea.

Let's learn from past mistakes. We need to:

• Get out of Libya
• Stay out of Libya
• Don't send any kind of military assistance to Libya; especially, DO NOT SEND ARMS!

It would be a real shame if some of our own "military assistance" made its way across the southern border of the US, and into the hands of some bad people.

Think about it.