On the last day of 2010, I look back on a busy but generally good year, and forward to a year that holds lots of questions.
Will 2011 be another good year personally, or will hard times come?
Will the country pull back from the brink politically and at least begin to restore reason, or will it be business as usual?
Will terrorism, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, et al threaten us, or will we keep them at bay another year? If we are attacked again, will our leaders choose to do anything about it, or seek to pacify our enemies?
I'm hopeful the Obamacare constitutional challenges will succeed. It is clearly unconstitutional. But what concerns me is that most of what today's Federal Government does today is also unconstitutional, so how can we go after one unconstitutional element of the Obamacare law (insurance purchase mandate), while we ignore all the other agencies and laws that are also unconstitutional but have stood for decades?
Unconstitutional federal things abound, here are just a few off the top of my head:
Social Security, Medicare, Federal Unemployment
The departments of Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, EEOC, and Labor
Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Boosted by FDR and the New Deal, the feds have siezed extra-constitutional power and the citizens have made no move to stop them.
Whether or not you believe some of the agencies and programs created in Washington since the 1930's serve a useful purpose, they are not permitted by the constitution. If we can't draw the line somewhere, there is no line.
The result is an overbearing, Big Brother government.
Our choice is clear in this new decade: We can either choose to take the crumbs from the government table so we at least don't starve to death, or we decide to risk starvation in search of freedom - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happy New Year!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Simplest Constitutional Question
With the latest ruling in Virginia declaring the health insurance purchase by all citizens under Obamacare unconsitutional, the only question should be why it took so long. The ruling is simple and evident.
If the feds can force us to buy health insurance, then why can't they also force us to:
Purchase an electric vehicle
Replace our Coal, Oil, or Gas furnace with Solar Panels
Stop buying things they think are bad for us, like soft drinks and french fries
Apply for permission to travel out of our state
Give up our home and move if the house is bigger than they think we should have
Wait 6 months to a year for the surgery that can save our life, while we hope we can live that long?
No, this isn't a stretch. Obamacare is the definition of government oppression and tyranny.
It needs to be ended, now.
If the feds can force us to buy health insurance, then why can't they also force us to:
Purchase an electric vehicle
Replace our Coal, Oil, or Gas furnace with Solar Panels
Stop buying things they think are bad for us, like soft drinks and french fries
Apply for permission to travel out of our state
Give up our home and move if the house is bigger than they think we should have
Wait 6 months to a year for the surgery that can save our life, while we hope we can live that long?
No, this isn't a stretch. Obamacare is the definition of government oppression and tyranny.
It needs to be ended, now.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Core Principles
It is puzzling to hear the angry denouncements against the president by most of his party over their belief that he "caved" on a core principle in agreeing to the tax compromise.
What exactly is the core principle, and why is it a core principle?
I'm searching for an answer to that question that makes sense, but the search is in vain. I simply can't figure out why Democrats hold as a core fundamental tenet of political philosophy the requirement that people who make over 200 thousand have to fork over 40% to the government instead of 35%.
Angry Dems are suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for decrying deficits, while refusing to consider increasing tax rates to at least try to close that gap. Of course, Republicans respond that it's not a tax problem, but a spending problem.
The larger question is why, while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't they simply pass a tax plan that fits their philosophy? Why is it that less than 2 weeks out from the expiration of the current tax rates, they suddenly discover their core prinicples, which appear to be based on little more than the old Robin Hood myth?
If a Democrat who defines their core principle as one that taxes the "rich" at 40% instead of 35% happens to be reading this, would you please help me understand by answering these questions?
1. How does it help the failing economy to raise the top tax rate to 40%?
2. Do you earn more or less than $200K? If more, why don't you voluntarily send the extra 5% to the Treasury to help out the government? If less, explain how making those other people pay extra taxes make your life better?
3. What exactly do you think the government will do with the extra tax revenue? Have you heard anybody in government say that it will be earmarked for unemployment benefits only? Or do you just want it to go toward deficit reduction?
4. The "deal" apparently includes reinstatement of the inheritance tax. How do you feeel about a government policy that prohibits you from inheriting the family business or family farm, because the inheritance tax burden forces you to sell out?
5. What if the "rich" decide not to participate, by simply capping their annual income at $200K, so almost nobody pays the 40%? What has it achieved?
6. If you had your way and could dictate tax rates, what would your brackets and rates be, and why?
I'm sincerely curious, and hope somebody answers my questions.
What exactly is the core principle, and why is it a core principle?
I'm searching for an answer to that question that makes sense, but the search is in vain. I simply can't figure out why Democrats hold as a core fundamental tenet of political philosophy the requirement that people who make over 200 thousand have to fork over 40% to the government instead of 35%.
Angry Dems are suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for decrying deficits, while refusing to consider increasing tax rates to at least try to close that gap. Of course, Republicans respond that it's not a tax problem, but a spending problem.
The larger question is why, while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't they simply pass a tax plan that fits their philosophy? Why is it that less than 2 weeks out from the expiration of the current tax rates, they suddenly discover their core prinicples, which appear to be based on little more than the old Robin Hood myth?
If a Democrat who defines their core principle as one that taxes the "rich" at 40% instead of 35% happens to be reading this, would you please help me understand by answering these questions?
1. How does it help the failing economy to raise the top tax rate to 40%?
2. Do you earn more or less than $200K? If more, why don't you voluntarily send the extra 5% to the Treasury to help out the government? If less, explain how making those other people pay extra taxes make your life better?
3. What exactly do you think the government will do with the extra tax revenue? Have you heard anybody in government say that it will be earmarked for unemployment benefits only? Or do you just want it to go toward deficit reduction?
4. The "deal" apparently includes reinstatement of the inheritance tax. How do you feeel about a government policy that prohibits you from inheriting the family business or family farm, because the inheritance tax burden forces you to sell out?
5. What if the "rich" decide not to participate, by simply capping their annual income at $200K, so almost nobody pays the 40%? What has it achieved?
6. If you had your way and could dictate tax rates, what would your brackets and rates be, and why?
I'm sincerely curious, and hope somebody answers my questions.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Pacers Monday
Nick said he had to work late, so Claudia and I braved the freezing temperatures and made the trip to Conseco to take in the Pacers.
You've got to give the organization credit in several areas. Despite their struggles to put a decent team on the court in the post-Reggie Miller era that doesn't include a bunch of delinquents, the Pacers organization is finally showing signs of life.
They're pushing a bunch of promotions to get more people in the fieldhouse, such as the one that I used to get a pretty good deal on Club-level seats last night.
They're doing their best to make the games a fun and family-friendly experience, with lots of entertainment promotions during breaks in play.
And most importantly, they've got a team that might actually be competitive. The Pacers are only a game out of first in the Central division, and would make the playoffs if the season ended now. The team seems to be playing better than even the earlier game I visited, sharing the ball better on offense and playing a bit tighter on defense.
If anybody wants a family-friendly evening of entertainment at a reasonable price, this is a good year to catch the Pacers.
You've got to give the organization credit in several areas. Despite their struggles to put a decent team on the court in the post-Reggie Miller era that doesn't include a bunch of delinquents, the Pacers organization is finally showing signs of life.
They're pushing a bunch of promotions to get more people in the fieldhouse, such as the one that I used to get a pretty good deal on Club-level seats last night.
They're doing their best to make the games a fun and family-friendly experience, with lots of entertainment promotions during breaks in play.
And most importantly, they've got a team that might actually be competitive. The Pacers are only a game out of first in the Central division, and would make the playoffs if the season ended now. The team seems to be playing better than even the earlier game I visited, sharing the ball better on offense and playing a bit tighter on defense.
If anybody wants a family-friendly evening of entertainment at a reasonable price, this is a good year to catch the Pacers.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Boy is it Cold Out
Better not try that global warming line on me this week. It's hard to get warm this week.
I'm not really very interested in the stuff going on in the Lame Duck session in Washington. It's sort of surreal that they can't get something as seemingly simple as extending the tax rates for 2011.
The thing that's a bit puzzling about the heated rhetoric on the topic comes from the Democrat side, who keep saying Republicans are holding up tax breaks for the middle class by insisting on massive give-backs to "millionaires and billionaires".
A couple things interesting about that argument:
First, the fact that nobody's talking about giving anybody an actual tax cut - not middle class or millionaires. All they're fighting about is whether or not to keep the existing tax rates in effect.
Second, my first-grade arithmetic tells me that 200 thousand is about 800 thousand short of 1 million. So how exactly are they defining a millionaire?
At least the GOP's message is simpler. Keep the tax rates the same permanently.
The only problem with that is the "permanent" idea. It seems to me Congress can no more make tax rates "permanant" than keep it from raining in DC in April.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Democrat rhetoric, embodied by some overwrought woman I caught on MSNBC the other night. Her impassioned speech decried this "massive handout to the rich, while so many middle-clase Americans are suffering".
Huh? Is she suggesting that keeping the top income tax rate at 35% instead of increasing it to 40% (OK, 39.6%, if you must be precise) is going to somehow cause millions of unemployed Americans to starve to death?
Unless she's suggesting a linkage between that 5% tax increase and the extension of unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. The only problem is that nobody has suggested earmarking those tax revenues for that purpose.
Otherwise, how is it that having people who make more than you pay more in taxes or not pay more in taxes affect your well-being one way or the other? And I haven't even moved into the fact that tax policy affects behavior of the taxed, which means it's unlikely the projected income to the government expected from this tax increase will materialize.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the argument is that our partisan leaders have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents.
Extend the tax cuts or don't. Besides the rhetoric, I think both parties know how it will impact the economy.
I'm not really very interested in the stuff going on in the Lame Duck session in Washington. It's sort of surreal that they can't get something as seemingly simple as extending the tax rates for 2011.
The thing that's a bit puzzling about the heated rhetoric on the topic comes from the Democrat side, who keep saying Republicans are holding up tax breaks for the middle class by insisting on massive give-backs to "millionaires and billionaires".
A couple things interesting about that argument:
First, the fact that nobody's talking about giving anybody an actual tax cut - not middle class or millionaires. All they're fighting about is whether or not to keep the existing tax rates in effect.
Second, my first-grade arithmetic tells me that 200 thousand is about 800 thousand short of 1 million. So how exactly are they defining a millionaire?
At least the GOP's message is simpler. Keep the tax rates the same permanently.
The only problem with that is the "permanent" idea. It seems to me Congress can no more make tax rates "permanant" than keep it from raining in DC in April.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Democrat rhetoric, embodied by some overwrought woman I caught on MSNBC the other night. Her impassioned speech decried this "massive handout to the rich, while so many middle-clase Americans are suffering".
Huh? Is she suggesting that keeping the top income tax rate at 35% instead of increasing it to 40% (OK, 39.6%, if you must be precise) is going to somehow cause millions of unemployed Americans to starve to death?
Unless she's suggesting a linkage between that 5% tax increase and the extension of unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. The only problem is that nobody has suggested earmarking those tax revenues for that purpose.
Otherwise, how is it that having people who make more than you pay more in taxes or not pay more in taxes affect your well-being one way or the other? And I haven't even moved into the fact that tax policy affects behavior of the taxed, which means it's unlikely the projected income to the government expected from this tax increase will materialize.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the argument is that our partisan leaders have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents.
Extend the tax cuts or don't. Besides the rhetoric, I think both parties know how it will impact the economy.
Friday, December 03, 2010
No Glee
I watched 'Glee' for the first time.
The musical performances are outstanding.
Everything that happens in between performances is trash. Nothing redeeming whatsovever.
The only way I watch again would be to DVR the show and skip over everything except the music.
If this is supposed to represent the attitudes and mores of high schoolers, we're even worse off than I thought. And I already thought things were pretty bad.
The musical performances are outstanding.
Everything that happens in between performances is trash. Nothing redeeming whatsovever.
The only way I watch again would be to DVR the show and skip over everything except the music.
If this is supposed to represent the attitudes and mores of high schoolers, we're even worse off than I thought. And I already thought things were pretty bad.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
An Alternative Perspective on DADT
The military policy called "Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise that was crafted during the Clinton administration. The Left wanted gays to serve openly in the armed forces, while the Right wanted to maintain the longstanding traditions banning homosexuals from military service.
My beef with Democrats is mainly the fact that this issue is front-and-center as a policy initiative, while they ignore the truly important issues. The country's bankrupt, healthcare is being destroyed, unemployment is approaching depression-era levels. Yet what is the President and his friends in Congress focused on? DADT.
Besides that, I'm forced to deal with the issue itself.
My personal philosophy is pretty well aligned with the existing policy. How somebody might feel or think about their sexuality should no more be a disqualification from service than their religion or political affiliation. Rather, that disqualification should absolutely take place if they act on those feelings, whether it's beating up another soldier because he's a member of the other political party, spying for jihadists, or propositioning other soldiers for sex.
I've read conflicting accounts of the military's current enforcement of DADT. Activists who want it repealed claim that gays are purposely harrassed and drummed out even when they try to abide by the policy. Alternative sources suggest that in most cases, known gays are allowed to remain as long as they are not flamboyant or militant about their orientation.
In cases like this, I tend to assume that both characterizations can be true, and it depends on the people involved. It's not difficult to imagine that there's one unit that is hyper-sensitive about gays, and will aggressively move to drum out all those who may be suspected of that orientation. It's also easy to imagine there are units with known gay folks, where nobody cares and there's no effort to discharge them as long as they do their job and don't damage the unit's cohesiveness.
The fear is that allowing gays to serve openly might create a culture and atmosphere that might actually be repressive of heterosexuals in units. The fear is that it will result in widespread same-sex harassment, break down unit cohesiveness with divisiveness between the straight and gay components of the unit, and lead to the creation of "pink" barracks, units where heteros are discriminated against and sexual behavior is rampant.
I'm actually so old-fashioned in my thinking that I still oppose women in combat. My position on that would seem tbe be supported by reports of frighteningly high incidences of pregnancies among women during tours of duty on naval ships, reports of widespread sexual harassment, unreported and unprosecuted instances of rape, and unchecked fraternization that flies in the face of military regulation.
The fear of many is that repeal of DADT will explode the problems of harassment and rape and violence among military units, adding the component of HIV epidemics in close quarter deployments. There may become widespread "pink barracks", with units made up primarily with gays that will not be open to heteros. That there will be pockets in the military of unrestricted same-sex behavior, bringing shame and disrepute to the reputation of military branches.
Ultimately I believe that congress and the courts should stay out of this policy altogether. The military leaders know best what's best for their troops, and should be premitted to implement the policies they need to accomplish their mission without meddling from outsider politicians who know nothing about what it's like to send soldiers to war.
My beef with Democrats is mainly the fact that this issue is front-and-center as a policy initiative, while they ignore the truly important issues. The country's bankrupt, healthcare is being destroyed, unemployment is approaching depression-era levels. Yet what is the President and his friends in Congress focused on? DADT.
Besides that, I'm forced to deal with the issue itself.
My personal philosophy is pretty well aligned with the existing policy. How somebody might feel or think about their sexuality should no more be a disqualification from service than their religion or political affiliation. Rather, that disqualification should absolutely take place if they act on those feelings, whether it's beating up another soldier because he's a member of the other political party, spying for jihadists, or propositioning other soldiers for sex.
I've read conflicting accounts of the military's current enforcement of DADT. Activists who want it repealed claim that gays are purposely harrassed and drummed out even when they try to abide by the policy. Alternative sources suggest that in most cases, known gays are allowed to remain as long as they are not flamboyant or militant about their orientation.
In cases like this, I tend to assume that both characterizations can be true, and it depends on the people involved. It's not difficult to imagine that there's one unit that is hyper-sensitive about gays, and will aggressively move to drum out all those who may be suspected of that orientation. It's also easy to imagine there are units with known gay folks, where nobody cares and there's no effort to discharge them as long as they do their job and don't damage the unit's cohesiveness.
The fear is that allowing gays to serve openly might create a culture and atmosphere that might actually be repressive of heterosexuals in units. The fear is that it will result in widespread same-sex harassment, break down unit cohesiveness with divisiveness between the straight and gay components of the unit, and lead to the creation of "pink" barracks, units where heteros are discriminated against and sexual behavior is rampant.
I'm actually so old-fashioned in my thinking that I still oppose women in combat. My position on that would seem tbe be supported by reports of frighteningly high incidences of pregnancies among women during tours of duty on naval ships, reports of widespread sexual harassment, unreported and unprosecuted instances of rape, and unchecked fraternization that flies in the face of military regulation.
The fear of many is that repeal of DADT will explode the problems of harassment and rape and violence among military units, adding the component of HIV epidemics in close quarter deployments. There may become widespread "pink barracks", with units made up primarily with gays that will not be open to heteros. That there will be pockets in the military of unrestricted same-sex behavior, bringing shame and disrepute to the reputation of military branches.
Ultimately I believe that congress and the courts should stay out of this policy altogether. The military leaders know best what's best for their troops, and should be premitted to implement the policies they need to accomplish their mission without meddling from outsider politicians who know nothing about what it's like to send soldiers to war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)