This message is to the Republicans in the House and Senate: Don't you dare blink!
When I say "Don't you dare blink!", I am talking about the Balanced Budget Amendment. I am not talking about the change in the very top tax bracket. I don't agree with changing any of the other tax brackets. But, if the only thing the Democrats are asking for is an increase in the very top tax bracket from 33% to 38%, then this is something that I think should be done. The key must be spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment. If the Democrats want both a debt ceiling increase and an increase in the very top tax bracket, then I think that is a fair compromise.
By the way, this amendment had better be so obvious, that anyone can read it and understand it. No more of this cryptic crap that is intended to facilitate more pork-barrel spending. No more politics as usual. This is your chance to re-establish the fiscal conservative reputation that was destroyed by both of the Bush administrations. This is your chance to do the right thing for the American people.
I believe the only way to get spending under control is to have a Balanced Budget Amendment. And, I don't think the debt ceiling should be raised unless we get a Balanced Budget Amendment.
I have been following the media stories that are all intended to get the public worried about an economic collapse because of the Republican strategy to force a Balanced Budget Amendment in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The media (and I suspect this administration) would have you believe that the crisis is so bad that only an increase in the debt ceiling will solve the problem. Well, I have a very simple question for both the media and this administration: why did this administration wait so long to act?
This administration has known that the Republicans were going to take a position to reduce spending; this was the obvious mandate from the American people in the 2010 elections. Of course, I also recognize that this administration believes they are operating on some kind of higher moral ground, and, thus, does not have to listen to the will of the American people; but, the signs were all there. The American people are very concerned about the excessive government spending and the size of the debt. And, no amount of media spin is going to change this.
The Democrats want us to believe that the people in the top tax bracket are some how benefiting more than the rest of us. Well, what about the people in Congress who get automatic pay increases every year? To me, I would rather have our government elitists reminded who they work for, and have all of their "perks" stripped away. I am sure that would save the government more than we can get by raising taxes on those in the top tax bracket.
I know I sound like a broken record on this point, but, the American people are not stupid. They are balancing their checkbooks every day, and they are seeing the impact on the price of goods that they have to consume. They understand that endless debt is not the answer. And, they are willing to make the hard choices in order to avoid bankruptcy. This is fundamentally different from the approach being used by this administration. Despite the evidence that you cannot spend your way out of a recession (because it just causes hyper inflation), this administration has continued to spend like there is no limit to the money that can come off the printing presses. This is the kind of arrogance that the American people wanted to be stopped when they gave control of Congress to the Republicans.
So, here we are: both parties nose to nose on the issue of the debt ceiling. Yes, the Republicans can give in. But, they should not. It's time for this administration to do the right thing. In fact, it was time for this administration to do the right thing months ago.
When the average American realizes that they are not going to have the money to do what they want to do, they adjust their spending to match their income. Sure, some can go and get a better job to increase their income, and, thus, keep spending. But, at some point, the credit card limits are reached, and, they have to make some hard choices.
This administration knew that they were going to hit their borrowing limit months ago. Did they stop or even curtail their spending? Not from what I can tell. It looks to me like they have just been jamming through as much spending as they could, on every entitlement program they could.
So, not only does this administration not stop spending, they try to spin this as the rich versus the poor. Despicable. Don't get me wrong: I think the very top tax rate should be increased from 33% to 38%. The problem is that this will not balance the budget. It's just not enough money. But, it looks good in the media, and, its an effective diversionary tactic; which is why this administration is taking this approach.
The Democrats have taken to running commercials showing Republicans pushing Grandma off a cliff because they want to curtail spending. Yet, when President Obama comes out saying that the Medicare age should be raised from 62 to 65, the media praises the administration for its innovative thinking. Who is really pushing Grandma off the cliff? All of these half-truths are just causing more problems. And, both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of trying to manipulate public opinion with half-truths. Shame on you both!
So, back to my question: why did the Obama Administration wait this long to act? Why didn't the Obama Administration do what we as average Americans would have to do once we reach our credit card limit? Why did this administration continue to spend? Imagine what would happen if all the American people just continued to spend? Oh wait, we don't have to imagine; we can just look at what caused all the foreclosures in the last three years.
It seems very logical to me that reductions in spending by consumers will adversely effect the economy. That said, what happens when a population spends money it really does not have? Well, they go into debt, and, their financial burden is increased by something called interest.
Interest is income for the banking industry, so they are not about to do anything that will interrupt their income stream. In fact, its obvious to me that greed in this industry is what caused consumers to be loaned more money than they could ever be expected to pay back. Yet, the government let the banks loan this money anyway; because they wanted the money to go into the economy. This artificial growth is nothing more than a temporary "high". And, when the money is gone and the bills are due, that is where the real pain starts. It's an addiction - plain and simple.
The sad thing is that the government wants us to be addicted to spending; because it makes us dependent on them. But, in fact, I believe it goes deeper than that. If a person being loaned money can be influenced by the person that is lending that money, then the person loaning the money has considerable power over the person borrowing the money. I think the same is true for governments, as well as the people elected into government positions. Is this what democracy has come down to?
I have a theory.
Once you subscribe to the "spend yourself out of a recession" theory, you would also have to subscribe to the "cutting spending will cause a recession" theory. It's one thing to spend money you have, but another all together to spend money you do not have.
I suspect that there would be some impact on the economy, if the government were to cut spending too drastically. This would be an impetus for this administration to resist spending cuts. If the spending cuts lead to another recession, this administration would most certainly get blamed, and they would lose the election. For me, I find it despicable that these government elitists are playing games with the lives of the average American.
I suspect that this administration was counting on their ability to manipulate public opinion through the media. The media has certainly been doing their part. I just read an article in USA Today indicating that raising the debt ceiling was not a big deal. I will take this article apart piece-by-piece in my next post. For now, I want to focus on the administration's attempt to manipulate public opinion, rather than dealing with the real problem. The real problem is spending.
Mr. President, you made a mistake. You cannot spend your way out of a recession. As a student of history, and, as smart as you are supposed to be, you should have known that. Now, its time to do the right thing. Yes, you might lose the election. But, are you willing to sacrifice the country so you can be President for another term? Wake up man! The spending is killing this country. Your policies are not working. You want to be a great leader, then try listening to a different set of people. I am an idealist too. But, I am also a pragmatist. You have to know that the spending is going to come back to haunt us. You ran on a platform of change, well, this is your chance. Start listening to the American people. Start listening to those who want to put our spending under control. Start supporting and helping the working class. Stop the pork-barrel spending. Stop the entitlements. Support a Balanced Budget Amendment. Now that would be change I can believe in.
Mr. President, you should have addressed the spending head-on, instead of trying to talk your way out of this. It looks to me like you wanted to pick a fight with the Republicans on this issue. I suspect you even thought you could use this issue to catapult yourself into another term in office. Well, I can tell you that your message is resonating with the left; as I am hearing it from all my liberal friends. But, I can also tell you that your message is not resonating with those in the middle; and, that is who you need to convince to get re-elected. You claim to be a centrist - now it's time to prove it. It's time to get behind the spending cuts. It's time to endorse a Balanced Budget Amendment.
I reiterate my challenge to the Republicans in the House and the Senate: Don't you dare blink!
In exchange for the Balanced Budget Amendment and immediate spending cuts, the Republicans should agree to raise the debt ceiling and to increase the very top tax rate from 33% to 38%.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Republicans are Lost
The first Republican debate is on CNN!
Really ...
So, the Republicans decide to have a debate on CNN. Why? Someone in the Republican camp is not taking this Presidential election very seriously. Why in the world would the Republican party want their first debate on CNN? Isn't it obvious that the liberal media is just looking for sound bites for Obama's campaign team? Why are you playing right into Obama's hands?
If you think I am joking, just take a look at some of the questions that were asked during this debate. If this were a serious debate, why would the moderator be asking about Blackberry versus iPhone? Or, about what kind of pizza the candidates like? And, what about the question where the American people think that the Republican field of candidates is "weak"? Tell me - what purpose does that question serve?
In my opinion, the liberal media is looking for every opportunity to spin the Republican primary into something that will help the Obama campaign. So, why play into this?
This is precisely why I stopped watching CNN back in 2008; cannot stomach the liberal spin in all of their reporting. Best Political Team my foot!
If the Republicans are serious about the 2012 election, they had better get their act together very quickly. The only issue that matters is that Obama is not re-elected in 2012. To this end, all of the Republican party candidates should be focusing on bringing Obama's dismal performance record into the light for all Americans to see.
The liberal media wants to see the Republican candidates fight. They want the drama. They want the material for use in the main election campaign. So, strategically speaking, it makes sense to "not" give the liberal media what they are looking for. This debate should have been an opportunity for all of the Republican candidates to present a common theme: Obama should not be re-elected in 2012, and, the reasons why. Don't play the liberal media game: stick together in pointing out the issues with the Obama Presidency. This is the only way a Republican can beat Obama: on his record.
If the Republican primary gets ugly (which I believe is what Obama and the liberal media are counting on), we guarantee Obama a second term. The only way to defeat Obama is for the Republicans to use the primary as a way to have lots of candidates pointing out the same issues in the Obama Presidency; make him own his record. If nothing else, every Republican candidate should state that every Republican candidate is a better choice than Obama. The Obama campaign wants to divide and conquer - don't let them.
In the end, the American people will choose a Republican candidate to face Obama. If that candidate is to have any chance of winning, all the other candidates need to continue their efforts in pointing out Obama's record. This is the only way Obama can be defeated in 2012.
Really ...
So, the Republicans decide to have a debate on CNN. Why? Someone in the Republican camp is not taking this Presidential election very seriously. Why in the world would the Republican party want their first debate on CNN? Isn't it obvious that the liberal media is just looking for sound bites for Obama's campaign team? Why are you playing right into Obama's hands?
If you think I am joking, just take a look at some of the questions that were asked during this debate. If this were a serious debate, why would the moderator be asking about Blackberry versus iPhone? Or, about what kind of pizza the candidates like? And, what about the question where the American people think that the Republican field of candidates is "weak"? Tell me - what purpose does that question serve?
In my opinion, the liberal media is looking for every opportunity to spin the Republican primary into something that will help the Obama campaign. So, why play into this?
This is precisely why I stopped watching CNN back in 2008; cannot stomach the liberal spin in all of their reporting. Best Political Team my foot!
If the Republicans are serious about the 2012 election, they had better get their act together very quickly. The only issue that matters is that Obama is not re-elected in 2012. To this end, all of the Republican party candidates should be focusing on bringing Obama's dismal performance record into the light for all Americans to see.
The liberal media wants to see the Republican candidates fight. They want the drama. They want the material for use in the main election campaign. So, strategically speaking, it makes sense to "not" give the liberal media what they are looking for. This debate should have been an opportunity for all of the Republican candidates to present a common theme: Obama should not be re-elected in 2012, and, the reasons why. Don't play the liberal media game: stick together in pointing out the issues with the Obama Presidency. This is the only way a Republican can beat Obama: on his record.
If the Republican primary gets ugly (which I believe is what Obama and the liberal media are counting on), we guarantee Obama a second term. The only way to defeat Obama is for the Republicans to use the primary as a way to have lots of candidates pointing out the same issues in the Obama Presidency; make him own his record. If nothing else, every Republican candidate should state that every Republican candidate is a better choice than Obama. The Obama campaign wants to divide and conquer - don't let them.
In the end, the American people will choose a Republican candidate to face Obama. If that candidate is to have any chance of winning, all the other candidates need to continue their efforts in pointing out Obama's record. This is the only way Obama can be defeated in 2012.
Trump for President
Mr. Trump,
I believe you to be an American Patriot. You are certainly a successful businessman. So, I am going to try to reason with you regarding your presidential ambitions. First and foremost: are you serious? I am asking this only because I know you have media interests, and, I know the publicity is not bad for your businesses. The question is simply do you really want all the headaches that come with the office? Why would you want that, when you are clearly already better off than most Americans? If you truly believe that you are being called to serve, then, I think there is a way you can run for President without causing the Ross Perot effect.
Here's my problem: if you run as either a Republican or an Independent, you will end up splitting the anti-Obama vote. This is not good, unless your intention is really to help him get re-elected. Is that your intention? Do you want to re-elect Obama to a second LAME DUCK term as President? I really want to know. The American people deserve to know.
Either you want to get Obama re-elected, or, you don't. If you don't want Obama to get re-elected, I have a sure fire way of putting him out of office: you should run for president; just on the Democrat ticket. If you really want to be President, then I think you should announce that you are challenging Obama for the Democrat nomination. If you can defeat him in the primaries, then our problem is solved. And, I believe that Obama can be beaten by a more moderate Democrat candidate in the primaries.
Are you up to the challenge, Mr. Trump? If you wanna be President, then, please, do the American people a favor and challenge Obama directly in the Democratic primaries. Otherwise, please, help the Republicans to launch a focused campaign to get this guy out of office in 2012. I don't believe our country can take four more years of the liberal policies that are coming out of this administration.
We need your help Mr. Trump. It's time to fire Barrack Obama as the American President.
I believe you to be an American Patriot. You are certainly a successful businessman. So, I am going to try to reason with you regarding your presidential ambitions. First and foremost: are you serious? I am asking this only because I know you have media interests, and, I know the publicity is not bad for your businesses. The question is simply do you really want all the headaches that come with the office? Why would you want that, when you are clearly already better off than most Americans? If you truly believe that you are being called to serve, then, I think there is a way you can run for President without causing the Ross Perot effect.
Here's my problem: if you run as either a Republican or an Independent, you will end up splitting the anti-Obama vote. This is not good, unless your intention is really to help him get re-elected. Is that your intention? Do you want to re-elect Obama to a second LAME DUCK term as President? I really want to know. The American people deserve to know.
Either you want to get Obama re-elected, or, you don't. If you don't want Obama to get re-elected, I have a sure fire way of putting him out of office: you should run for president; just on the Democrat ticket. If you really want to be President, then I think you should announce that you are challenging Obama for the Democrat nomination. If you can defeat him in the primaries, then our problem is solved. And, I believe that Obama can be beaten by a more moderate Democrat candidate in the primaries.
Are you up to the challenge, Mr. Trump? If you wanna be President, then, please, do the American people a favor and challenge Obama directly in the Democratic primaries. Otherwise, please, help the Republicans to launch a focused campaign to get this guy out of office in 2012. I don't believe our country can take four more years of the liberal policies that are coming out of this administration.
We need your help Mr. Trump. It's time to fire Barrack Obama as the American President.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Osama bin Laden
Osama bin Laden is dead!
Consider this: if things are bad when the administration has to be careful because of the upcoming election, imagine how bad things could get when this is a lame-duck administration.
The election in 2012 must be about this administration's actions; all of their actions, not just those media moments that we are going to get pummeled with over the next year. I believe our only hope is that Americans look closely at this administration's actions, when they are considering who to vote for in 2012.
This is really great news, isn't it? Or is it? Don't get me wrong, I think this guy was a menace, and, he should have been brought to justice for the 9/11 attacks on the US.
I am a bit confused though. I thought this administration opposes torture. I thought this administration wants to give "rights" to everyone, including the 9/11 attackers. Haven't we been doing just that for one of the other attackers? It's a bit inconsistent to insist on "humane treatment" for one of the 9/11 masterminds, and then summarily execute another. Yeah, Osama bin Laden was probably more dangerous. But, a public trial would have been better for the American people. My grandfather always told me that two wrongs don't make a right. So, is it right to execute someone, even if they committed murder? I don't want to debate the death penalty in this particular blog. But, I do want you to consider the inconsistencies of this administrations actions.
In the poker world, a change in behavior is called a "tell". Is this a tell? If so, what does it mean?
Justice is a key cornerstone of our country. In order for Justice to be fair, it must be applied the same for all people; despite circumstances. When Justice is not applied equally (according to Dr. Martin Luther King), its discrimination. That said, why summarily execute one 9/11 mastermind, and try to put another on a public trial? Did Osama bin Laden get a secret trial that I am not aware of? Should we be executing people without a trial?
Actually, why kill Osama bin Laden in the first place? Why not capture him and bring him back for a very long and public trial? Politically, I would think this would have been better for this administration. In fact, I will go so far as to say It could have assured Obama a second term. Is this a "tell"?
Not only is Osama bin Laden dead, but, his body was "buried at see" (according to media reports). Okay - why? Why bury him at sea? Yeah, yeah, I heard the explanation from the administration. I just find it curious. Why bury the body at sea? Is this a "tell"?
One thing is for sure, this event (execution of Osama bin Laden) sure put Obama on the front page of every media outlet in the world. He's a global hero. In fact, I hear he is up for a Nobel Peace Prize. Oh wait, he already has one of those. Well, I am sure the world will find a way to reward his actions. This is some serious political capital that Obama has right now. And, based on past his history, I am sure that he will find a way to capitalize on it.
Did you know that the Dollar has been gaining on the Euro since Osama bin Laden was executed? Yep, it was around $1.50 to buy one Euro before Osama bin Laden was killed. As of the writing of this blog, the rate has dropped to almost $1.40 to buy one Euro. And, guess what? The price of gas has been dropping too. But, what caused this shift in the Dollar/Euro rate? Is this just a coincidence, or is this a "tell"?
The administration did say they were going to reduce deficit spending. And, a statement like that might be met with skepticism given the administration's track record; unless, the administration was able to gain credibility through some other means.
Obama is a global hero! He got Osama bin Laden!
I've been wondering for weeks why this administration would choose to get involved in the Libyan conflict. Something just did not add up here. This was completely inconsistent with the administration's position on Bush and the Iraq war. Yet, this administration used almost the same humanitarian arguments to justify the military action. Is this a "tell"?
It is ironic that the French opposed getting involved in Iraq, yet, they seem to be aggressively bombing the Libyan military. Of course, having the US and the UK join forces with the French to "protect the civilian population" almost makes the military action justifiable. Another "tell"?
Do the French have the ability to influence the Dollar/Euro exchange ratio?
Meanwhile, debates have begun in Washington on the debt ceiling. Republicans were gearing up to make their stand. After all, the rationale given by Republicans for NOT shutting down the government during budget battles, was that a stand could be made on the debt ceiling debates.
Americans are dancing in the streets! Osama bin Laden is dead, and, gas prices are dropping. What more could they (Americans) ask for? Americans are breathing a sigh of relief. Things are looking up. There finally is hope!
I've been asking myself why this administration would give the order to get Osama bin Laden now, when they could have easily waited until this event could have a bigger impact on the upcoming election. I'm sure the administration will spin this as putting the country before politics. But, that is just not consistent with the administration's track record. It looks to me like these folks really like being in power, and I am convinced they will do anything to stay in power (see Servants or Masters). Of course, for all we know, the administration might have been waiting for the right moment all along.
So, why go after Osama bin Laden now?
Well, clearly, this will ensure that the Republicans will be very cautious about picking a fight with the administration over the debt ceiling. The American people are celebrating - the debt ceiling is the last thing on their minds right now.
But still, why now? Why use the political capital now instead of closer to the election? And, why was Osama bin Laden buried at sea?
I find it interesting that Al Queda admitted (almost immediately) that Osama bin Laden had been killed. Now, if I was hiding and the press said I was dead, I would want everyone to believe the press so I could keep right on hiding. I would instruct my media folks to go along with the story. I also might be worried that the people who were looking for me might be using this as a tactic to get me to relax my vigilance.
Some are saying that Al Queda intends to use this as a rallying cry for more attacks on the US. This would most certainly lead to higher security (and awareness) in the US for years to come. We know this because of the 9/11 attacks. We also know that national solidarity helped to re-elect Bush in 2004. Bush was the hero back then, because he was keeping the country safe.
Even without Osama bin Laden's body, Obama is a global hero. Americans are celebrating in the streets. And, at this point, the Republicans are back on the defensive. I believe this is precisely how Obama was able to get himself elected in 2008. And, at this point, it sure looks like he is moving in for a win. The Republicans were counting on the deficit and national security as their key issues, and both of these have effectively been neutralized.
In poker, when a player manages to out-play his opponent, the player is congratulated for his exceptional play. Well played Mr. president - well played. The Republicans never saw this coming.
The Republicans should be kicking themselves for not acting when they had the chance. In my opinion, they better start listening to the people who gave them control of congress; they better eliminate the deficit. Otherwise, they are gonna all be voted out in 2012. I know my Republican representative is on shaky ground because he has not voted the way we wanted him to vote.
This administration has proven to me that they can do anything they want, and then spin the media in order to manipulate public opinion. How else can you explain the obvious inconsistencies? In fact, they can even explain the inconsistencies in this blog as conspiracy theories; much the same as the great birth certificate conspiracy theories. I prefer to look at the inconsistencies as "tells". At this point however, it really does not matter whether Osama bin Laden is dead or alive; all play lines lead to the same outcome.
I would hope that most Americans would recognize the true nature of this administration's policies. More importantly, I would hope that Americans would look closely at this administration's actions, and ignore or avoid all of the media spin. I've been reading the articles in Newsweek (and other publications) that explain how hard the president's job is. These kinds of articles are clearly intended to gain sympathy from the public for what I believe is a really is a poor performance record.Consider this: if things are bad when the administration has to be careful because of the upcoming election, imagine how bad things could get when this is a lame-duck administration.
The election in 2012 must be about this administration's actions; all of their actions, not just those media moments that we are going to get pummeled with over the next year. I believe our only hope is that Americans look closely at this administration's actions, when they are considering who to vote for in 2012.
By the way, it would not surprise me one bit if Osama bin Laden suddenly went on public trial right before the 2012 election; this is my conspiracy theory. You heard it here first! :-)
The true irony is that no matter whether Osama bin Laden is dead or alive, he may have succeeded in bringing the change HE wanted to America, by ensuring a favorable climate for this administration to have a second term - a lame-duck term.
May God have mercy on America.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
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:
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:
Think about it.
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?
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!
Think about it.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Get it yourself !
I am just plain shocked. I'm so shocked, I needed to vent. So, this will be a quick rant. :-)
I am in a Marriott Courtyard in the London area. And, I just ordered room service; as I did not want to eat in the restaurant because of the time required. I figured room service would be quicker.
Well, I already have a bottle of water in my room. I return to the US tomorrow, and I can't take the water through security. So, since I was ordering room service, I figured I could get a glass of ice with my meal.
Well !
The person taking my room service order told me in no uncertain terms that there was an ice machine just at the end of the hall by the lift (that's an English elevator).
I felt like Ralphy as he sat in Santa's lap. I was speechless as she reviewed my order and terminated the call with "that's it then".
I'm sure I will find this humorous at some point. But, as a platinum Marriott member, I'm not real happy about being told to "get it myself". That said, maybe I am taking my elite status too seriously. And, maybe I needed to be reminded of a few things.
I wonder if they read my "I want" blog. ;-)
Sent from my iPhone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)