Kirsten Powers is well known by anybody who watches Fox News, as she's often invited in to represent the Liberal perspective when they're discussing issues. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but that sort of thing happens on MSNBC somewhere between rarely and never. When it does happen on the radical left-wing channel, the brave conservative who shows up is chopped up and incinerated.
Kirsten wrote an article yesterday titled "The GOP is Threatening Murder-Suicide with New Shutdown Warnings".
Her article represents the elitist attitude that Republicans never approach an issue from a point of principle. Republicans are merely political animals whose mission is to obstruct Democratic objectives at every turn. Kristen notes that Obamacare is the president's capstone achievement, so that must be the reason Republicans want to destroy it.
Not that it's disastrously expensive, patently unfair, laden with unnecessary and silly regulations, is already responsible for smothering economic recovery, and most of all fails to deliver on nearly all of it's trumpeted objectives.
In Kirsten's world, those crazy right-wing Christians, especially Catholics, object to contraceptive mandates because they're stuck in the 1500's. Who could possibly object to helping women prevent pregnancy? I suppose Kristen's perspective about children is that they're a disease that must be prevented rather than a blessing representing a bright future for America.
She would lecture us that we have to stop these negative attitudes and this unfounded mistrust of the Federal government. Her Democrat friends in DC are the smartest people she knows, and they know what's best for all of us ordinary people who live out there in flyover country. We should therefore acquiesce to the enlightened guidance of Kirsten and all of her liberal friends, who went to universities like Harvard and Yale and therefore know a lot more about what it means to be a citizen of the world.
Kirsten has no concerns about government mandates. Kathleen Sebelius should have the power to design the health insurance plans for the insurers and dicate to evey one of them what should and should not be covered, how the premiums are to be priced, and how much the Doctors and other providers will be allowed in compensation. The IPAB isn't a Death Panel, because it's probably going to be made up of caring liberals who think just like Kirsten; they're smart people who will make the wisest decisions possible about our care. It's perfectly OK that Sebelius chooses which insurance companies will be permitted to participate in the Exchanges, because if she wasn't vetting them some evil profit-driven companies might slip through.
Kirsten happily overlooks the fact that hundreds of Obama cronies, both business and union entities, have been granted waivers from having to implement the conditions of Obamacare. Even Congress has been given special dispensation from King Barack.
So Kirsten believes that Obamacare is a free-market solution to healthcare that is more "fair". I struggle to understand how a small hand-picked cadre of companies providing insurance products designed and priced by the government is a free-market solution. And over my lifetime I have learned that the definition of "fair" depends on the individual - if it benefits me, then it's "fair"; if it benefits someone else at my expense, it's not "fair". Guess what, Kirsten: Obamacare is NOT fair.
Will this initiative be suicide for the GOP? We'll see, but probably not. But if a government shutdown ensues, which party will be the one committing suicide? Why wouldn't it be the Democrats, who rather than allowing a temporary delay to allow the Obamacare exchanges to be fully developed and the multitude of kinks in the system ironed out, insisted on implementing it in full force because it wasn't ready for primetime?
The media is determined to hammer the message home to all Americans that the GOP caused a government shutdown over some petty political desire to stop a signature Obama program. All the while, those who know the truth know that Obamacare is the most unwieldy, costly, corrupt, and disastrous law to be passed in generations. It deserves to be delayed at a minimum, or better yet repealed.
Kirsten has illustrated our modern problem for us. She will never understand the mind of a conservative. I know she just wants us to all go away so her party can have their way forever. Sorry Kirsten, we're not ready to surrender just yet.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Cowards in Washington
Republicans have the people behind them.
Yet they tremble in fear and refuse to support initiatives with their somewhat bolder colleagues to defund that monstrosity called "ObamaCare". The unconstitutional law should have been repealed by the Supreme Court, but a cowardly John Roberts kept it alive by simultaneously declaring it unconstitutional and rewriting it in a way he could declare it constitutional. I wonder if there is any precedent of the court rewriting a law in order to repair its unconstitutional provisions - I always thought the process was to declare it unconstitutional and send it back to congress to try again. Unfortunately, Roberts felt huge pressure from the Democrats and the White House to roll over on the case.
So the polling is clear, and has been clear for some time. American's don't like the idea of the Federal Government telling them what insurance to buy, charge us more for it, then dictate what's covered and not covered. It sounds tyrannical. Sarah Palin was vilified for introducing the term "death panels" to describe the national healthcare council, but has been proven right. Whether the council turns into an egregious "death panel" for millions of Americans under ObamaCare remains to be seen, but they certainly have been granted that power.
Liberals like provisions that do away with insurance practices that deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. They supposedly like the provision that lets parents keep their children on their plan until age 26, although that seems to me more of an indictment of the Obama Economy than a positive outcome.
So most states had the pre-existing problem solved by offering various high-risk pools that their citizens could join. Seniors are already covered under Medicare. The poor are already covered by Medicaid. So it seems that the biggest problem has been that middle-income folks who work for companies that don't offer benefits or are self-employed were not buying private insurance because they viewed the policies as family budget-busters.
So now the Federal Government steps in and destroys all of the state high-risk pools with a one-size-fits-all plan. One that forces those people who had previously chosen to remain uninsured to buy insurance at rates from 25 to 100 percent higher than what they would have paid if they'd bought private insurance previously.
People are also now being forced to buy insurance that is mandated to cover contraception at 100 percent. Even if they're committed Catholics who believe contraception is immoral, their premiums will certainly be used to pay for other young women's contraceptives. Businesses are being forced to also provide health insurance plans to their employees that cover contraception at 100 percent. They're in court still, trying to overturn that particular mandate.
Perhaps the best proof the law is bad and needs to be repealed is the fact that Congress has successfully exempted themselves. The ruling class has decided that the laws they pass only apply to their subjects, yet they deserve special treatment.
All I ask of congress is that they grow a pair. You can't win the battle if you don't show up on the field. If you fight hard and still lose, at least you gave it your all. Your irrational fear of the media twisting your motives into a desire to "shut down government" is no excuse. They'll do what they do. Even John Roberts pulled that one on Fox News Sunday this weekend, so even the so-called conservative cable news channel proved to be toeing the liberal line on the GOP initiatives to stop Obamacare from being fully implemented.
So talk directly to your constituents and act according to your principles. If you lose your seat next year, so be it. But if your constituents come to understand the principle involved, they won't send you home. If you chicken out from this fight, they might choose someone else next year.
Yet they tremble in fear and refuse to support initiatives with their somewhat bolder colleagues to defund that monstrosity called "ObamaCare". The unconstitutional law should have been repealed by the Supreme Court, but a cowardly John Roberts kept it alive by simultaneously declaring it unconstitutional and rewriting it in a way he could declare it constitutional. I wonder if there is any precedent of the court rewriting a law in order to repair its unconstitutional provisions - I always thought the process was to declare it unconstitutional and send it back to congress to try again. Unfortunately, Roberts felt huge pressure from the Democrats and the White House to roll over on the case.
So the polling is clear, and has been clear for some time. American's don't like the idea of the Federal Government telling them what insurance to buy, charge us more for it, then dictate what's covered and not covered. It sounds tyrannical. Sarah Palin was vilified for introducing the term "death panels" to describe the national healthcare council, but has been proven right. Whether the council turns into an egregious "death panel" for millions of Americans under ObamaCare remains to be seen, but they certainly have been granted that power.
Liberals like provisions that do away with insurance practices that deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. They supposedly like the provision that lets parents keep their children on their plan until age 26, although that seems to me more of an indictment of the Obama Economy than a positive outcome.
So most states had the pre-existing problem solved by offering various high-risk pools that their citizens could join. Seniors are already covered under Medicare. The poor are already covered by Medicaid. So it seems that the biggest problem has been that middle-income folks who work for companies that don't offer benefits or are self-employed were not buying private insurance because they viewed the policies as family budget-busters.
So now the Federal Government steps in and destroys all of the state high-risk pools with a one-size-fits-all plan. One that forces those people who had previously chosen to remain uninsured to buy insurance at rates from 25 to 100 percent higher than what they would have paid if they'd bought private insurance previously.
People are also now being forced to buy insurance that is mandated to cover contraception at 100 percent. Even if they're committed Catholics who believe contraception is immoral, their premiums will certainly be used to pay for other young women's contraceptives. Businesses are being forced to also provide health insurance plans to their employees that cover contraception at 100 percent. They're in court still, trying to overturn that particular mandate.
Perhaps the best proof the law is bad and needs to be repealed is the fact that Congress has successfully exempted themselves. The ruling class has decided that the laws they pass only apply to their subjects, yet they deserve special treatment.
All I ask of congress is that they grow a pair. You can't win the battle if you don't show up on the field. If you fight hard and still lose, at least you gave it your all. Your irrational fear of the media twisting your motives into a desire to "shut down government" is no excuse. They'll do what they do. Even John Roberts pulled that one on Fox News Sunday this weekend, so even the so-called conservative cable news channel proved to be toeing the liberal line on the GOP initiatives to stop Obamacare from being fully implemented.
So talk directly to your constituents and act according to your principles. If you lose your seat next year, so be it. But if your constituents come to understand the principle involved, they won't send you home. If you chicken out from this fight, they might choose someone else next year.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Trying to Understand
As a conservative in both personal and political philosophy, I have always sought to understand the liberal mind. Whenever there's an issue that pits the conservative point of view against the liberal point of view, I admit that I struggle to understand how anybody could take the left side of the argument.
Since I finally signed up on facebook this year, I've started to notice trends in the postings of liberal facebook "friends". Their posts are remarkably different from those of my conservative or undertermined "friends".
Scrolling through facebook, I've noticed the liberal postings stick out like a sore thumb. They're not overtly political, at least most of the time. But they do reflect a completely different worldview, at least from mine. They're terribly trite and naive. Cute animal pictures and YouTube videos. Posters with trite messages about loving everyone and getting along and dedicating ourselves to saving the planet.
It may not be the same as if I could do an in-depth study, but it does sort of lead me to a few generalized conclusions.
The average liberal is an idealistic thinker, who believes everyone should just try to understand each other and respect our differences.
The ordinary liberal is either an atheist or is not associated with a Christian tradition. They seem to fall somewhere between suspicious and hostile in their attitudes toward Christianity and Christians, which for me calls into question whether they might be a little hypocritical in their formost stated philosophy. Perhaps we can amend that idea that we should respect each other's differences to add the exception when those differences involve Christians.
The liberal holds firmly onto a belief that everyone has a "right" to quality healthcare. They don't mind at all if that means that everyone else has to pay double for theirs. I suspect if a liberal's health insurance bill doubles in January, they'll blame it on everything else (mainly the greedy insurance companies) before even considering the true cause.
I'm also noticing that the average liberal gets riled if the subject is raised about the waste and fraud epidemic in federal assistance programs, especially Food Stamps and Disability. In their minds, it might be unfortunate that people might be fraudulently accessing those benefits, but it can never reach a level to justify reform. They get highly fearful that any reform by the evil Republicans would result in the truly needy losing their benefits, therefore no changes to the programs are ever justified.
It seems that a great analogy is to a family budget. Let's say the husband works hard to create and maintain a family budget, but his wife can't help herself and busts the budget with her overspending month after month. (Don't call me sexist, please - consider the roles reversed between husband and wife if you prefer)
So the couple has a conversation after a particulary egregious month of overspending.
"You overspent the budget by $1,000 this month", says the husband. "We can't go on this way, because all it does is rack up debt and make it harder for us to provide the things our family needs!"
"I promise you, every penny was spent on things we needed", says the wife.
It fits perfectly with how Democrat governance differs from Conservative governance. Notice that I used the word "Conservative" rather than "Republican", because we've learned that the two are not the same. Most conservatives are republicans, but most republicans are not conservative.
At least Democrats have no such divisions. In the Democratic Party, anyone who opposes Obamacare, tax and minimum wage increases, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and out-of-control deficit spending is not welcome.
Since I finally signed up on facebook this year, I've started to notice trends in the postings of liberal facebook "friends". Their posts are remarkably different from those of my conservative or undertermined "friends".
Scrolling through facebook, I've noticed the liberal postings stick out like a sore thumb. They're not overtly political, at least most of the time. But they do reflect a completely different worldview, at least from mine. They're terribly trite and naive. Cute animal pictures and YouTube videos. Posters with trite messages about loving everyone and getting along and dedicating ourselves to saving the planet.
It may not be the same as if I could do an in-depth study, but it does sort of lead me to a few generalized conclusions.
The average liberal is an idealistic thinker, who believes everyone should just try to understand each other and respect our differences.
The ordinary liberal is either an atheist or is not associated with a Christian tradition. They seem to fall somewhere between suspicious and hostile in their attitudes toward Christianity and Christians, which for me calls into question whether they might be a little hypocritical in their formost stated philosophy. Perhaps we can amend that idea that we should respect each other's differences to add the exception when those differences involve Christians.
The liberal holds firmly onto a belief that everyone has a "right" to quality healthcare. They don't mind at all if that means that everyone else has to pay double for theirs. I suspect if a liberal's health insurance bill doubles in January, they'll blame it on everything else (mainly the greedy insurance companies) before even considering the true cause.
I'm also noticing that the average liberal gets riled if the subject is raised about the waste and fraud epidemic in federal assistance programs, especially Food Stamps and Disability. In their minds, it might be unfortunate that people might be fraudulently accessing those benefits, but it can never reach a level to justify reform. They get highly fearful that any reform by the evil Republicans would result in the truly needy losing their benefits, therefore no changes to the programs are ever justified.
It seems that a great analogy is to a family budget. Let's say the husband works hard to create and maintain a family budget, but his wife can't help herself and busts the budget with her overspending month after month. (Don't call me sexist, please - consider the roles reversed between husband and wife if you prefer)
So the couple has a conversation after a particulary egregious month of overspending.
"You overspent the budget by $1,000 this month", says the husband. "We can't go on this way, because all it does is rack up debt and make it harder for us to provide the things our family needs!"
"I promise you, every penny was spent on things we needed", says the wife.
It fits perfectly with how Democrat governance differs from Conservative governance. Notice that I used the word "Conservative" rather than "Republican", because we've learned that the two are not the same. Most conservatives are republicans, but most republicans are not conservative.
At least Democrats have no such divisions. In the Democratic Party, anyone who opposes Obamacare, tax and minimum wage increases, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and out-of-control deficit spending is not welcome.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Voter Suppression?
Since Colorado recalled two State Senators earlier this week, there has been lots of noise from the Left charging "voter suppression". That made me curious, so I did a bit of web surfing to find related stories.
The only reasonable explanation I could find was an article written by someone on the Left who tried to accuse the Colorado Secretary of State of attempting to block registered voters from casting their vote in the recall election. That led me to read about the challenge brought by Democrats, when I discovered that the argument was about whether or not each county should send ballots to registered voters who didn't show up for last year's election. Colorado calls them "inactive voters", therefore they strip them from the mailing list.
This is what constitutes voter suppression to the radical Left? Suppose I add another twist to the story and reveal that they got a judge to tell Colorado they should go ahead and allow the ballots to be mailed to those voters. The story I read said that's exactly what happened, as several counties went ahead and sent them out.
So where's the suppression exactly? Did anybody tell a single eligible voter that they won't be allowed to vote? No. Is Angela Giron a sore loser, or does she have proof that her supporters were not allowed to cast their ballots? Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the pathological flamethrowing liar from the Democratic party, says voters were denied their rights in Colorado, and we should believe her precisely because ...?
Google returns a bunch of stories on the subject that suggest the Democrats tried to bus in a large number of out-of-state folks to cast ballots for their recalled senators but were rebuffed. If the anger being expressed is over illegal voters being suppressed, unless we belong to the end-justifies-the-means wing of the Democratic party, exactly why would we have a problem with the law being enforced?
I recall the days when Indiana's Voter ID law was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was upheld, by the way. The Democratic Party trotted out a woman who claimed it was too much of a burden for her to get a photo ID, therefore she felt her right to vote was being suppressed. Some intrepid reporter checked on who the woman was, and it turned out she was ineligible to vote in Indiana anyway.
Who but the most corrupt or naive American believes this overwrought drivel about Republicans conspiring to keep Democrats from voting? I have yet to see a single story of actual voter suppression (of a Democratic voter). Of course, there are lots of stories out there about attempted suppression of Republican voters? Does anyone really believe that there's not a single Republican within the city limits of Cleveland and Philadelphia?
Government of, by, and for the ignorant and stupid, I suppose.
The only reasonable explanation I could find was an article written by someone on the Left who tried to accuse the Colorado Secretary of State of attempting to block registered voters from casting their vote in the recall election. That led me to read about the challenge brought by Democrats, when I discovered that the argument was about whether or not each county should send ballots to registered voters who didn't show up for last year's election. Colorado calls them "inactive voters", therefore they strip them from the mailing list.
This is what constitutes voter suppression to the radical Left? Suppose I add another twist to the story and reveal that they got a judge to tell Colorado they should go ahead and allow the ballots to be mailed to those voters. The story I read said that's exactly what happened, as several counties went ahead and sent them out.
So where's the suppression exactly? Did anybody tell a single eligible voter that they won't be allowed to vote? No. Is Angela Giron a sore loser, or does she have proof that her supporters were not allowed to cast their ballots? Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the pathological flamethrowing liar from the Democratic party, says voters were denied their rights in Colorado, and we should believe her precisely because ...?
Google returns a bunch of stories on the subject that suggest the Democrats tried to bus in a large number of out-of-state folks to cast ballots for their recalled senators but were rebuffed. If the anger being expressed is over illegal voters being suppressed, unless we belong to the end-justifies-the-means wing of the Democratic party, exactly why would we have a problem with the law being enforced?
I recall the days when Indiana's Voter ID law was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was upheld, by the way. The Democratic Party trotted out a woman who claimed it was too much of a burden for her to get a photo ID, therefore she felt her right to vote was being suppressed. Some intrepid reporter checked on who the woman was, and it turned out she was ineligible to vote in Indiana anyway.
Who but the most corrupt or naive American believes this overwrought drivel about Republicans conspiring to keep Democrats from voting? I have yet to see a single story of actual voter suppression (of a Democratic voter). Of course, there are lots of stories out there about attempted suppression of Republican voters? Does anyone really believe that there's not a single Republican within the city limits of Cleveland and Philadelphia?
Government of, by, and for the ignorant and stupid, I suppose.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
When Results Don't Match Rhetoric
This might be the most fascinating result of nearly 6 years of a liberal government. Their promises to make the distribution of wealth "fair" are proving to have been empty. There's an interesting article today that suggests the mythical 1 percenters have done better under Obama than since the 1020's.
Don't just let the headline influence your opinions on the subject - there's a lot to be found in the details that might wreck anyone's predetermined liberal or conservative philosophies.
Obama's policies have absolutely tossed a soaking-wet blanket over the economy. Massive new regulations have stifled business growth and investment. Obamacare has practically destroyed the economy, adding massive new bureaucracies and their related costs to an already overburdened healthcare system. Record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamps, disability, and other welfare benefits from the government. The baby boom generation is retiring, and bankrupting a Medicare and Social Security system that never considered the massive numbers of citizens who would rely on them someday.
If Obama had done nothing, some think the economy would have rebounded naturally. That's a hard thing to prove. I think Obama's trillion-dollar "Stimulus" bill probably did more damage to recovery than the very marginal benefit it provided, which was nearly all funneled to Obama's cronies.
We see Barack and Michelle living like King and Queen, spending lavishly on command performances at the White House and hundred-million-dollar vacation trips. The exude an attitude that some how it's their turn to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich and famous. I pick up on a sort of imperious arrogance from the Obamas which belies their "of the people" political message.
Contrary to Obama's rhetoric, restrictive rules telling average folks what cars they can drive, what medical procedures and prescriptions they are permitted, and even what their kids are allowed to eat in their school lunches hardly help them prosper. Good jobs are what help people prosper.
Obama's definition of a good job is a government job. A union member working for the government earns the president's generosity, while the average Joe working for a small business out in flyover country doesn't deserve a thought. That average Joe is probably clinging to his bible and his gun, as Obama himself famously proclaimed. Joe somehow deserves to pay double to heat his home and must be forced out of his family minivan and onto some new government-sponsored train system. Joe will be forced to stop eating at McDonald's and be directed to have kale and arugula for lunch, under Michelle's enforced menu.
The horrible president Obama has surpassed for inept governance, Jimmy Carter, was fortunately turned out of office after a single term. In about two years, Ronald Reagan turned the dying Carter economy into a boom never seen before by simply rolling back unnecessary regulations and freeing business to invest and innovate. All the while Democrats dripped a venomous charge calling Reagan's economic program "Trickle-Down Economics".
There are many folks who lived through the same times, but we seem to be evenly split on the lessons we learned (or didn't learn) from the Carter years and repeated in the Obama years. I guess my contemporaries on the left side of the political spectrum simply chose to wear a blindfold to support their Messianic president.
Don't just let the headline influence your opinions on the subject - there's a lot to be found in the details that might wreck anyone's predetermined liberal or conservative philosophies.
Obama's policies have absolutely tossed a soaking-wet blanket over the economy. Massive new regulations have stifled business growth and investment. Obamacare has practically destroyed the economy, adding massive new bureaucracies and their related costs to an already overburdened healthcare system. Record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamps, disability, and other welfare benefits from the government. The baby boom generation is retiring, and bankrupting a Medicare and Social Security system that never considered the massive numbers of citizens who would rely on them someday.
If Obama had done nothing, some think the economy would have rebounded naturally. That's a hard thing to prove. I think Obama's trillion-dollar "Stimulus" bill probably did more damage to recovery than the very marginal benefit it provided, which was nearly all funneled to Obama's cronies.
We see Barack and Michelle living like King and Queen, spending lavishly on command performances at the White House and hundred-million-dollar vacation trips. The exude an attitude that some how it's their turn to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich and famous. I pick up on a sort of imperious arrogance from the Obamas which belies their "of the people" political message.
Contrary to Obama's rhetoric, restrictive rules telling average folks what cars they can drive, what medical procedures and prescriptions they are permitted, and even what their kids are allowed to eat in their school lunches hardly help them prosper. Good jobs are what help people prosper.
Obama's definition of a good job is a government job. A union member working for the government earns the president's generosity, while the average Joe working for a small business out in flyover country doesn't deserve a thought. That average Joe is probably clinging to his bible and his gun, as Obama himself famously proclaimed. Joe somehow deserves to pay double to heat his home and must be forced out of his family minivan and onto some new government-sponsored train system. Joe will be forced to stop eating at McDonald's and be directed to have kale and arugula for lunch, under Michelle's enforced menu.
The horrible president Obama has surpassed for inept governance, Jimmy Carter, was fortunately turned out of office after a single term. In about two years, Ronald Reagan turned the dying Carter economy into a boom never seen before by simply rolling back unnecessary regulations and freeing business to invest and innovate. All the while Democrats dripped a venomous charge calling Reagan's economic program "Trickle-Down Economics".
There are many folks who lived through the same times, but we seem to be evenly split on the lessons we learned (or didn't learn) from the Carter years and repeated in the Obama years. I guess my contemporaries on the left side of the political spectrum simply chose to wear a blindfold to support their Messianic president.
Monday, September 09, 2013
Evaluating Talk Radio
I drive a lot. Lately I've hardly ever been on an airplane, but it's nothing for me to log 500 to 1,000 highway miles in a week. So I need to listen to something that is interesting enough to keep me awake. Most music radio stations don't meet that requirement, although it's pretty common for me to play country music during a trip.
Mostly I listen to talk radio. I've heard most of the best-known talkers, so I thought I'd do a bit of an evaluation of the medium.
Local radio talkers include Greg Garrison, Larry Downes, Dana Loesch, the Chicks on the Right, to name a few. Garrison is probably my favorite among the local talent. He has gotten himself in trouble in the past with some hot rhetoric, but generally seems like a pretty decent guy. He's an Indianapolis lawyer whose claim to fame was earned when he served as the prosecuting attorney in the Mike Tyson rape trial.
Garrison is still practicing law, and he seems to take a lot of vacation time. So when I tune into his weekday morning show it seems there's a pretty good chance there's somebody filling in for him. Some of his fill-in hosts are less than compelling, to be charitable.
Larry Downes and the Chicks are brand new. Larry seems like a nice guy, but my initial take on him is that he's probably about center-right on the spectrum. I think Larry's maybe economically conservative, but socially may lean more to the liberal side. That may not be correct, because I haven't heard nearly enough of him to pin him down for certain.
The Chicks are kind of a fun alternative that are new to the medium. They apparently are just a couple of relatively young women who happen to lean conservative and started a blog together a couple of years ago. They got their first radio show on the weekends in Indy, and just last week signed on for a daily show. They like to talk a lot about cultural stories, and come across sort of like a couple of Valley Girls who happen to also be intelligent.
Dana Loesch is a highly attractive pundit who used to represent a conservative viewpoint on CNN. She seems to have disappeared from CNN and I've now seen her pop up a couple of times on Fox News. She has a daily show out of her hometown of St. Louis, and WIBC in Indy picks up an hour of that show. She's certainly passionate, and sometimes funny.
Among the national group of talkers, Rush Limbaugh is king. My late liberal father even admitted to enjoying Rush, even though he liked to claim that most of Rush's points were bunk. On the occasions where I talked about political issues with my Dad, he often tried to shut down my points by accusing me of getting them from Rush. Most of the time that wasn't true.
Rush is able to reach such a huge audience because he's bombastic but entertaining. He is indeed mostly fun to listen to, which seems to explain his broad audience of plenty of conservatives and liberals. Most of those libs who attack Rush as racist and extreme cite internet myths that anyone who has listened to Rush more than a few times know are far from true.
Although I think I'd like Hannity personally, I am not his biggest fan on the radio. He is extremely repetitive, making the same points over and over and over .... On the other hand, I've seen some excellent episodes of his Fox News show, especially those in which he talks to folks gathering in the studio. His lead-in with the country song about "We'll put a boot in your a$$" has really gotten old.
Michael Savage is sort of a strange dude from San Francisco. My impression of Savage is that he's a very lonely man who loves his dog and fancies himself a gourmand. He spends a lot of time trashing his fellow conservative talkers, which is something that puzzles me. I can't tell if it is out of jealousy or he thinks it's a legitimate strategy for stealing listeners or if it's some other thing. I can't say I'm a fan.
Laura Ingraham is one I actually like very much. She's smart, witty, and funny. Her foes like to promote the message that she's a world-class b!%@&. I can't say if she is or not in private, but I do wonder why she never married.
Glenn Beck is very entertaining as well, and he seems to be building his own empire on the internet and alternative media. He has a tendency to take a story that has a basis in fact, then spin his interpretation of the story to paint a dire warning. Sometimes he legitimately scares me. Other times I just toss him off as taking it way too far. Recently he was building up some story about terrorist support for the Tsarnaev brothers in the Boston bombing. He promised his story would blow the lid off the government cover-up he was sure was happening to hide their direct relationship with a terrorist group. But somehow the story quietly faded and never blew the cover off anything. On the other hand, he can be credited with exposing avowed communists in the Obama administration, which made him one of the most hated conservative talkers.
Mark Levin is also a very intelligent talker. He yells a lot. But his focus on the Constitution is valuable, and his insights on constitutional law make me wonder if he wouldn't be a great Supreme Court justice. Then again, I'm not sure he could restrain himself enough to maintain the decorum of that place. I'd be afraid he might punch out Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Elena Kagan.
There are lots of other talkers out there in radio land, but the rest of them I have listened to very little. Certainly Rush is king, and is absolutely the pioneer of the medium. Thinking about it a certain way, I find it fascinating that I'd probably rather hang out with Hannity, but prefer to listen to Rush's show. I'd certainly love to meet every one of them.
Mostly I listen to talk radio. I've heard most of the best-known talkers, so I thought I'd do a bit of an evaluation of the medium.
Local radio talkers include Greg Garrison, Larry Downes, Dana Loesch, the Chicks on the Right, to name a few. Garrison is probably my favorite among the local talent. He has gotten himself in trouble in the past with some hot rhetoric, but generally seems like a pretty decent guy. He's an Indianapolis lawyer whose claim to fame was earned when he served as the prosecuting attorney in the Mike Tyson rape trial.
Garrison is still practicing law, and he seems to take a lot of vacation time. So when I tune into his weekday morning show it seems there's a pretty good chance there's somebody filling in for him. Some of his fill-in hosts are less than compelling, to be charitable.
Larry Downes and the Chicks are brand new. Larry seems like a nice guy, but my initial take on him is that he's probably about center-right on the spectrum. I think Larry's maybe economically conservative, but socially may lean more to the liberal side. That may not be correct, because I haven't heard nearly enough of him to pin him down for certain.
The Chicks are kind of a fun alternative that are new to the medium. They apparently are just a couple of relatively young women who happen to lean conservative and started a blog together a couple of years ago. They got their first radio show on the weekends in Indy, and just last week signed on for a daily show. They like to talk a lot about cultural stories, and come across sort of like a couple of Valley Girls who happen to also be intelligent.
Dana Loesch is a highly attractive pundit who used to represent a conservative viewpoint on CNN. She seems to have disappeared from CNN and I've now seen her pop up a couple of times on Fox News. She has a daily show out of her hometown of St. Louis, and WIBC in Indy picks up an hour of that show. She's certainly passionate, and sometimes funny.
Among the national group of talkers, Rush Limbaugh is king. My late liberal father even admitted to enjoying Rush, even though he liked to claim that most of Rush's points were bunk. On the occasions where I talked about political issues with my Dad, he often tried to shut down my points by accusing me of getting them from Rush. Most of the time that wasn't true.
Rush is able to reach such a huge audience because he's bombastic but entertaining. He is indeed mostly fun to listen to, which seems to explain his broad audience of plenty of conservatives and liberals. Most of those libs who attack Rush as racist and extreme cite internet myths that anyone who has listened to Rush more than a few times know are far from true.
Although I think I'd like Hannity personally, I am not his biggest fan on the radio. He is extremely repetitive, making the same points over and over and over .... On the other hand, I've seen some excellent episodes of his Fox News show, especially those in which he talks to folks gathering in the studio. His lead-in with the country song about "We'll put a boot in your a$$" has really gotten old.
Michael Savage is sort of a strange dude from San Francisco. My impression of Savage is that he's a very lonely man who loves his dog and fancies himself a gourmand. He spends a lot of time trashing his fellow conservative talkers, which is something that puzzles me. I can't tell if it is out of jealousy or he thinks it's a legitimate strategy for stealing listeners or if it's some other thing. I can't say I'm a fan.
Laura Ingraham is one I actually like very much. She's smart, witty, and funny. Her foes like to promote the message that she's a world-class b!%@&. I can't say if she is or not in private, but I do wonder why she never married.
Glenn Beck is very entertaining as well, and he seems to be building his own empire on the internet and alternative media. He has a tendency to take a story that has a basis in fact, then spin his interpretation of the story to paint a dire warning. Sometimes he legitimately scares me. Other times I just toss him off as taking it way too far. Recently he was building up some story about terrorist support for the Tsarnaev brothers in the Boston bombing. He promised his story would blow the lid off the government cover-up he was sure was happening to hide their direct relationship with a terrorist group. But somehow the story quietly faded and never blew the cover off anything. On the other hand, he can be credited with exposing avowed communists in the Obama administration, which made him one of the most hated conservative talkers.
Mark Levin is also a very intelligent talker. He yells a lot. But his focus on the Constitution is valuable, and his insights on constitutional law make me wonder if he wouldn't be a great Supreme Court justice. Then again, I'm not sure he could restrain himself enough to maintain the decorum of that place. I'd be afraid he might punch out Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Elena Kagan.
There are lots of other talkers out there in radio land, but the rest of them I have listened to very little. Certainly Rush is king, and is absolutely the pioneer of the medium. Thinking about it a certain way, I find it fascinating that I'd probably rather hang out with Hannity, but prefer to listen to Rush's show. I'd certainly love to meet every one of them.
I Don't Get It
Honestly, I've been trying to understand. But this one is simply beyond me.
Barack Obama campaigned for President as the Anti-Bush. He guaranteed that had he been in congress during the Iraq war authorization, he would have voted against it. He campaigned as the "smart" one who could solve international conflict through the simple force of his personality. He promised to "talk" to our enemies, as if somehow that would make them love us.
Now he has mounted a new campaign. Not to win an election, but to win American support for tossing a few missiles into Syria to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons in that country's civil war. He and John Kerry and the staffers he's sent out to spread the word emphasize that the attack will be extremely limited, of short duration, and is not aimed at removing Assad.
The only part I understand is that Obama set the "red line" a year ago, promising action if Assad used chemical weapons. Assad promptly did so, almost as if he was flipping off Obama more than deploying the weapons to put down the rebellion.
OK, so Obama wants to toss a few missiles into Syria so he can say he did something.
But as far as I can tell, his attack will serve no real purpose beyond proving that Obama meant what he said.
What is the bigger objective? It certainly won't make any impact on turning the tables on Assad in the civil war. Even if it modestly shifts the momentum, it appears that he'll be helping Islamic Terrorists in the opposition to Assad, which doesn't sound like a desirable outcome. So what is Obama trying to accomplish?
There are several theories being floated:
It's about warning Iran and proving to the Mullahs there that they should fear the United States. No, I don't think that's it - I think this whole exercise is doing more to encourage the Iranians to press forward with their nuclear program.
He is privately supporting the Muslim Terrorists in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Quaeda, and many other splinter groups. Certainly he has been unwilling to carry forward Bush's war on terrorism, and he even banned the phrase (War on Terror). But is he really so anti-American that he supports the Islamic Jihad against America and Israel? Maybe, but I certainly hope not.
It is a deliberate attempt to distract the country from all his scandals and the failing implementation of Obamacare. That one makes sense, but it seems like a pretty extreme way to change the subject.
There's a rumor that the Saudi's have offered to fund the whole thing, essentially hiring Obama to deploy American forces on their behalf as soldiers of fortune. Only rather than the soldiers getting the fortune, it would be Obama getting paid. It sounds outrageous, but these days almost anything could be true.
This is the Liberal approach to waging war. That's hard for me to swallow, as I lived through Viet Nam and the Iraq war, which were opposed by liberals without compromise. Liberals were fond of saying that war is "never justified". So why are they suddenly backing this one?
Finally, there's the theory that Obama wants to escalate war in the Middle East, perhaps even to the point of WWIII. That he subscribes to the Islamic prophecies of bringing the Caliphate into power so they rule the world. I am afraid to even consider that this theory might be true.
Maybe there's a liberal out there who is reading this that can explain it to me. Because I'm still lost for a reasonable explanation.
Barack Obama campaigned for President as the Anti-Bush. He guaranteed that had he been in congress during the Iraq war authorization, he would have voted against it. He campaigned as the "smart" one who could solve international conflict through the simple force of his personality. He promised to "talk" to our enemies, as if somehow that would make them love us.
Now he has mounted a new campaign. Not to win an election, but to win American support for tossing a few missiles into Syria to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons in that country's civil war. He and John Kerry and the staffers he's sent out to spread the word emphasize that the attack will be extremely limited, of short duration, and is not aimed at removing Assad.
The only part I understand is that Obama set the "red line" a year ago, promising action if Assad used chemical weapons. Assad promptly did so, almost as if he was flipping off Obama more than deploying the weapons to put down the rebellion.
OK, so Obama wants to toss a few missiles into Syria so he can say he did something.
But as far as I can tell, his attack will serve no real purpose beyond proving that Obama meant what he said.
What is the bigger objective? It certainly won't make any impact on turning the tables on Assad in the civil war. Even if it modestly shifts the momentum, it appears that he'll be helping Islamic Terrorists in the opposition to Assad, which doesn't sound like a desirable outcome. So what is Obama trying to accomplish?
There are several theories being floated:
It's about warning Iran and proving to the Mullahs there that they should fear the United States. No, I don't think that's it - I think this whole exercise is doing more to encourage the Iranians to press forward with their nuclear program.
He is privately supporting the Muslim Terrorists in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Quaeda, and many other splinter groups. Certainly he has been unwilling to carry forward Bush's war on terrorism, and he even banned the phrase (War on Terror). But is he really so anti-American that he supports the Islamic Jihad against America and Israel? Maybe, but I certainly hope not.
It is a deliberate attempt to distract the country from all his scandals and the failing implementation of Obamacare. That one makes sense, but it seems like a pretty extreme way to change the subject.
There's a rumor that the Saudi's have offered to fund the whole thing, essentially hiring Obama to deploy American forces on their behalf as soldiers of fortune. Only rather than the soldiers getting the fortune, it would be Obama getting paid. It sounds outrageous, but these days almost anything could be true.
This is the Liberal approach to waging war. That's hard for me to swallow, as I lived through Viet Nam and the Iraq war, which were opposed by liberals without compromise. Liberals were fond of saying that war is "never justified". So why are they suddenly backing this one?
Finally, there's the theory that Obama wants to escalate war in the Middle East, perhaps even to the point of WWIII. That he subscribes to the Islamic prophecies of bringing the Caliphate into power so they rule the world. I am afraid to even consider that this theory might be true.
Maybe there's a liberal out there who is reading this that can explain it to me. Because I'm still lost for a reasonable explanation.
The Football Post
My annual football post is becoming a bit of a tradition for this blog. As a new season launches, it must be time to post my observations and predictions.
The high school teams, Columbus North and East, are already 3 games into their season. East is undefeated and ranked #1 again. They truly do seem almost unbeatable, but that was the case in the last 2 years, when they ran up against powerhouse mega-schools from the Indianapolis area that easily tossed them aside.
Columbus North has slid precipitously backwards over the last couple of years. This year to date they find themselves without a victory, and given their robust schedule it seems unlikely for them to get more than 1 or 2 wins in the entire season. Somehow the balance of power has shifted decidedly to Columbus East, which seems to be attracting the best athletes in the city. I don't have an explanation, but suspect that if I were to ask the players privately, they'll probably tell me.
Columbus East has a big positive this year that improves their chances of breaking through to the state championship this Thanksgiving. The IHSAA has created a brand new class for football, 6A. The Indy mega-schools were moved into the new class, which seems to open a terrific opportunity for them.
At the college level, Notre Dame is slipping, with a degraded defense and Tommy Rees back at quarterback. I like Tommy, and he's a decent quarterback. But he lacks the mobility and creativity and intangible ability to find a way to win when the game's on the line that Everett Gholson had last year. Did the graduation of Manti Teo degrade the defense that much? Michigan was clearly the better team this weekend.
Ball State is looking terrific so far. I think they'll be a bowl team, and look like they just might be serious contenders for the MAC championship.
Indiana is better. They aren't competitive for the Big Ten title by any means, but they've improved over the last two years. Unfortunately, I still don't think they're a bowl team. But this team just might have a chance to win the oaken bucket game.
The Colts are still a bit of a mystery. Even after this weekend's win over Oakland, I'm not able to make any predictions. Reggie Wayne is still terrific and Andrew Luck is solid. But the offensive line still seems like a liability. And I can't tell whether Terrell Pryor is an exceptional scrambler, and deserved to be the number 1 rusher in the NFL this weekend, or if the hapless Colts defense still can't catch anybody with the ball and a modicum of quickness.
The Colts were fortunate to pull out their victory against Oakland. It remains to be seen whether Oakland is going to prove themselves better than advertised or the Colts are destined to perform poorly this year.
The high school teams, Columbus North and East, are already 3 games into their season. East is undefeated and ranked #1 again. They truly do seem almost unbeatable, but that was the case in the last 2 years, when they ran up against powerhouse mega-schools from the Indianapolis area that easily tossed them aside.
Columbus North has slid precipitously backwards over the last couple of years. This year to date they find themselves without a victory, and given their robust schedule it seems unlikely for them to get more than 1 or 2 wins in the entire season. Somehow the balance of power has shifted decidedly to Columbus East, which seems to be attracting the best athletes in the city. I don't have an explanation, but suspect that if I were to ask the players privately, they'll probably tell me.
Columbus East has a big positive this year that improves their chances of breaking through to the state championship this Thanksgiving. The IHSAA has created a brand new class for football, 6A. The Indy mega-schools were moved into the new class, which seems to open a terrific opportunity for them.
At the college level, Notre Dame is slipping, with a degraded defense and Tommy Rees back at quarterback. I like Tommy, and he's a decent quarterback. But he lacks the mobility and creativity and intangible ability to find a way to win when the game's on the line that Everett Gholson had last year. Did the graduation of Manti Teo degrade the defense that much? Michigan was clearly the better team this weekend.
Ball State is looking terrific so far. I think they'll be a bowl team, and look like they just might be serious contenders for the MAC championship.
Indiana is better. They aren't competitive for the Big Ten title by any means, but they've improved over the last two years. Unfortunately, I still don't think they're a bowl team. But this team just might have a chance to win the oaken bucket game.
The Colts are still a bit of a mystery. Even after this weekend's win over Oakland, I'm not able to make any predictions. Reggie Wayne is still terrific and Andrew Luck is solid. But the offensive line still seems like a liability. And I can't tell whether Terrell Pryor is an exceptional scrambler, and deserved to be the number 1 rusher in the NFL this weekend, or if the hapless Colts defense still can't catch anybody with the ball and a modicum of quickness.
The Colts were fortunate to pull out their victory against Oakland. It remains to be seen whether Oakland is going to prove themselves better than advertised or the Colts are destined to perform poorly this year.
Friday, September 06, 2013
How We Know We Have a Rogue Government
When your government begins to govern against the will of its people, we can reasonably conclude that they have destroyed the representative republic established by our country's founders.
There's plenty of evidence to support the assertion that our government has gone rogue and is now a tyrannical elite governing for their own benefit to the detriment of the citizens who mistakenly believes they sent them to represent them.
Just look at all the laws and regulations that were forced through against the will of the people.
Obamacare is exhibit A. There has never been even as much as an even split between citizens for and against that horrible law. Yet it is becoming the law of the land, and all of us will be trapped in its clutches by January. A small movement of lawmakers are trying to kill the law by defunding it, but the elites make fun of them. One particular elite calls those congressmen "gooney birds".
The Keystone Pipeline is supported by a huge majority of Americans. Yet the president uses all the power he has, plus some he doesn't have, to block the project.
Fast and Furious isn't a law, but it was a program created from pure political motivation. Eric Holder created the program to funnel assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels, knowing they would be used for criminal activity. The twisted theory was that all those Mexican gangsters would be killing everybody with those American assault weapons and give momentum to their desire to pass new laws outlawing such weapons. Problem was, their illicit plan was exposed, and so far their attempts to outlaw firearms in America have failed. Holder should be in jail, but instead he still is a vocal advocate for disarming the citizenry.
We can only thank God for the silver lining, which is all the laws these elites have been trying to push through against the will of the people that have failed up to this point. Starting with gun bans, they extend to many other issues.
Amnesty for illegal aliens. I choose to use the honest language rather than the silly disguised language the elites use to try to convince us those millions of illegal US residents are just honest, hardworking people who somehow find themselves being persecuted by racists who just don't like them because of their skin color.
Cap and Trade: This completely ridiculous law actually passed the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives, but Republicans barely managed to kill it in the Senate. It's one of the main reasons, along with Obamacare, that Republicans were able to win control of the House.
Card Check: Even some Democrats couldn't support this one. It would have essentially legalized Union extortion and coercion. It would have produced false results that forced unionization on hundreds or perhaps thousands of American companies.
Coal Industry Destruction: The president is accomplishing this one without any help from the elites in congress. He's simply telling the EPA to make regulations on coal-powered electrical generation plants so onerous they are forced to close the plants or convert them to operate on natural gas. So far we're just lucky that gas is relatively cheap. For now.
Nixon resigned in shame in large degree because he unsuccessfully tried to get the IRS to target his political enemies. Obama succeeded in getting the IRS to target his political enemies, yet he and his elite supporters do their best to cover up the scandal.
Obama wants to attack Syria. An overwhelming majority of Americans want him to forget it. Yet it seems likely that he'll end up launching some cruise missiles into the country anyway. All we can hope is that his actions don't escalate the Syrian civil war into a Middle Eastern conflagration that pulls in Syria's neighbors, Israel, and possibly ignite WWIII. All in the midst of a massive reduction in military readiness, which makes America unprepared for any new wars, let alone the third World War.
Obama has managed to coddle our enemies and insult our friends. He promised a change that would get the rest of the world to stop hating America. I guess he succeeded, only rather than hating America, they now have lost all respect for America.
Obama nationalized General Motors and unlawfully sold off Chrysler, then boldly claimed that he had saved the American automobile industry. Meanwhile Detroit is a bankrupt, failed city. Americans not part of the leadership of the UAW objected and were ignored. Obama's top objective was to get GM to bring the Volt, and all-electric car, to market. Nobody bought it, despite outrageous rebates provided by the Federal Government to try to help them sell. The Volt's a running joke.
Obama bailed out the banks, brokerage firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Americans objected, but he did it anyway.
Congress pushed through a law nationalizing Student Loans. It's been a disaster. College students are racking up unprecedented debt to pay the outrageous tuition and fees hiked out of sight by their universities, then can't find a job and are unable to repay. That law got pushed through so fast that there was no time for opposition to get organized.
When pressed on the poor economy, he mostly continues to blame his predecessor. But his only economic solutions are higher taxes and more regulation, which of course effects the economy negatively. He's either bent on destroying American business or is clueless about what makes American business work. I have concluded it's the former.
In his first term, I considered Obama as about the equivalent of Jimmy Carter in terms of the race to become the worst president in my lifetime. Now he's surpassed the peanut farmer from Georgia, hands-down.
There's plenty of evidence to support the assertion that our government has gone rogue and is now a tyrannical elite governing for their own benefit to the detriment of the citizens who mistakenly believes they sent them to represent them.
Just look at all the laws and regulations that were forced through against the will of the people.
Obamacare is exhibit A. There has never been even as much as an even split between citizens for and against that horrible law. Yet it is becoming the law of the land, and all of us will be trapped in its clutches by January. A small movement of lawmakers are trying to kill the law by defunding it, but the elites make fun of them. One particular elite calls those congressmen "gooney birds".
The Keystone Pipeline is supported by a huge majority of Americans. Yet the president uses all the power he has, plus some he doesn't have, to block the project.
Fast and Furious isn't a law, but it was a program created from pure political motivation. Eric Holder created the program to funnel assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels, knowing they would be used for criminal activity. The twisted theory was that all those Mexican gangsters would be killing everybody with those American assault weapons and give momentum to their desire to pass new laws outlawing such weapons. Problem was, their illicit plan was exposed, and so far their attempts to outlaw firearms in America have failed. Holder should be in jail, but instead he still is a vocal advocate for disarming the citizenry.
We can only thank God for the silver lining, which is all the laws these elites have been trying to push through against the will of the people that have failed up to this point. Starting with gun bans, they extend to many other issues.
Amnesty for illegal aliens. I choose to use the honest language rather than the silly disguised language the elites use to try to convince us those millions of illegal US residents are just honest, hardworking people who somehow find themselves being persecuted by racists who just don't like them because of their skin color.
Cap and Trade: This completely ridiculous law actually passed the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives, but Republicans barely managed to kill it in the Senate. It's one of the main reasons, along with Obamacare, that Republicans were able to win control of the House.
Card Check: Even some Democrats couldn't support this one. It would have essentially legalized Union extortion and coercion. It would have produced false results that forced unionization on hundreds or perhaps thousands of American companies.
Coal Industry Destruction: The president is accomplishing this one without any help from the elites in congress. He's simply telling the EPA to make regulations on coal-powered electrical generation plants so onerous they are forced to close the plants or convert them to operate on natural gas. So far we're just lucky that gas is relatively cheap. For now.
Nixon resigned in shame in large degree because he unsuccessfully tried to get the IRS to target his political enemies. Obama succeeded in getting the IRS to target his political enemies, yet he and his elite supporters do their best to cover up the scandal.
Obama wants to attack Syria. An overwhelming majority of Americans want him to forget it. Yet it seems likely that he'll end up launching some cruise missiles into the country anyway. All we can hope is that his actions don't escalate the Syrian civil war into a Middle Eastern conflagration that pulls in Syria's neighbors, Israel, and possibly ignite WWIII. All in the midst of a massive reduction in military readiness, which makes America unprepared for any new wars, let alone the third World War.
Obama has managed to coddle our enemies and insult our friends. He promised a change that would get the rest of the world to stop hating America. I guess he succeeded, only rather than hating America, they now have lost all respect for America.
Obama nationalized General Motors and unlawfully sold off Chrysler, then boldly claimed that he had saved the American automobile industry. Meanwhile Detroit is a bankrupt, failed city. Americans not part of the leadership of the UAW objected and were ignored. Obama's top objective was to get GM to bring the Volt, and all-electric car, to market. Nobody bought it, despite outrageous rebates provided by the Federal Government to try to help them sell. The Volt's a running joke.
Obama bailed out the banks, brokerage firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Americans objected, but he did it anyway.
Congress pushed through a law nationalizing Student Loans. It's been a disaster. College students are racking up unprecedented debt to pay the outrageous tuition and fees hiked out of sight by their universities, then can't find a job and are unable to repay. That law got pushed through so fast that there was no time for opposition to get organized.
When pressed on the poor economy, he mostly continues to blame his predecessor. But his only economic solutions are higher taxes and more regulation, which of course effects the economy negatively. He's either bent on destroying American business or is clueless about what makes American business work. I have concluded it's the former.
In his first term, I considered Obama as about the equivalent of Jimmy Carter in terms of the race to become the worst president in my lifetime. Now he's surpassed the peanut farmer from Georgia, hands-down.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
How Would I Vote on Bombing Syria?
Over the holiday weekend I heard some congressmen talking about Obama's request that they pass a resolution granting him authority to punish Assad by tossing a few tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria. It was quite interesting to hear Republicans and Democrats alike saying pretty much the same thing:
"I'm not sold yet. I'm going to need to get a lot of questions answered before I'm willing to vote to authorize the use of force against Syria."
The words weren't the same, but the sentiment certainly matched.
The Syrian civil war has been boiling for nearly 2 years, but only now do we have the president paying attention. The reported death toll in their civil war so far is about 120,000. But Obama drew the "red line" in the sand, promising he would act if Assad used chemical weapons. The chemical weapons came out almost immediately, but Obama ignored them. So they came out again recently, and Obama was being embarrassed by his failure to follow through on his red line.
Now it seems the president wants to toss a few tomahawks into Syria so he can say he acted on his ultimatum. But tossing a few tomahawks into the desert that destroy some empty buildings sounds like an empty effort to me. Worse yet, what if some of the missiles destroy a bunch of civilians but fail to take out any military assets? Whether that happens or not, we can count on Al Jazeera airing lots of pictures of mourners in the streets with their dead families they claim were killed in the American attack.
The critical question is, what American interests are at stake? How can we insure our actions help the side in the civil war that will be friendly to Americans rather than affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and/or Al Quaeda?
They say that the Middle East is watching closely to see what America does. If we choose not to respond, it telegraphs a message that we won't actually do anything to the rogue regimes. We won't stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. We won't be serious about stopping terrorism. Perhaps we won't even help Israel if they are attacked, even with nuclear weapons.
My thinking is that if America is really serious about stopping rogue middle eastern dictators from using WMD, we probably should mount a campaign against Assad with the simple objective of destroying the Assad regime. Then we let the vacuum be filled by whoever is strongest, which probably means radical islamists and probably Iran.
So way back a year ago, when the Syrian rebels were supposedly not radical Islamists, maybe Obama should have funneled resources to the rebels and mounted an air campaign to destroy the Syrian military capability. But that ship sailed a year ago. There is no good option today.
So I agree with the people in congress who have said they need a lot more information before they would vote to support this symbolic attack. Without any information to convince me that the attack will be the least bit meaningful, I think my vote would be "No". Or in congress, maybe it would be "Nay".
"I'm not sold yet. I'm going to need to get a lot of questions answered before I'm willing to vote to authorize the use of force against Syria."
The words weren't the same, but the sentiment certainly matched.
The Syrian civil war has been boiling for nearly 2 years, but only now do we have the president paying attention. The reported death toll in their civil war so far is about 120,000. But Obama drew the "red line" in the sand, promising he would act if Assad used chemical weapons. The chemical weapons came out almost immediately, but Obama ignored them. So they came out again recently, and Obama was being embarrassed by his failure to follow through on his red line.
Now it seems the president wants to toss a few tomahawks into Syria so he can say he acted on his ultimatum. But tossing a few tomahawks into the desert that destroy some empty buildings sounds like an empty effort to me. Worse yet, what if some of the missiles destroy a bunch of civilians but fail to take out any military assets? Whether that happens or not, we can count on Al Jazeera airing lots of pictures of mourners in the streets with their dead families they claim were killed in the American attack.
The critical question is, what American interests are at stake? How can we insure our actions help the side in the civil war that will be friendly to Americans rather than affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and/or Al Quaeda?
They say that the Middle East is watching closely to see what America does. If we choose not to respond, it telegraphs a message that we won't actually do anything to the rogue regimes. We won't stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. We won't be serious about stopping terrorism. Perhaps we won't even help Israel if they are attacked, even with nuclear weapons.
My thinking is that if America is really serious about stopping rogue middle eastern dictators from using WMD, we probably should mount a campaign against Assad with the simple objective of destroying the Assad regime. Then we let the vacuum be filled by whoever is strongest, which probably means radical islamists and probably Iran.
So way back a year ago, when the Syrian rebels were supposedly not radical Islamists, maybe Obama should have funneled resources to the rebels and mounted an air campaign to destroy the Syrian military capability. But that ship sailed a year ago. There is no good option today.
So I agree with the people in congress who have said they need a lot more information before they would vote to support this symbolic attack. Without any information to convince me that the attack will be the least bit meaningful, I think my vote would be "No". Or in congress, maybe it would be "Nay".
Friday, August 30, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 10: The Role of Government
If you haven't figured it out by reading the previous chapters, I'm a constitutionalist. Rather than buying into the modern Liberal philosophy that says the Constitution was written by a bunch of 200-year-old white men who wore powdered wigs and bizarre wool clothing so it has no bearing on modern society, I believe those founding fathers were a smart bunch of fellows. Certainly they were better educated than 80 percent of Americans today. They were well versed on history, philosophy, religion, and had terrific insights on human nature.
We're a republic, not a democracy. We were founded to be a tolerant society, not a libertine anarchy. Freedom is the preeminent value of America.
We live in a time where people are demanding majority rule over a representative republic, and consequently have made it their mission to destroy all opposition to insure their majority by silencing their opponents. There are things public figures dare not say in public - those things may not get them put in jail, but they'll certainly be driven out of their jobs and forcibly banished to a life in hiding from the persecutors. Expressing any thoughts opposing or even questioning gay marriage, climate change, or abortion continues to cost high profile people their jobs. All at the same time as those on the left openly fantasize about assassinating George W. Bush and openly expressing their wish that Dick Cheney die from his heart condition.
The Federal Government must only be permitted those enumerated powers granted it by the Constitution. That means that nearly the entire alphabet soup of federal agencies should not exist. No department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection, Education, Communication, Public Broadcasting, Social Security, Health and Human Services, and so on ...
The Federal Government may provide the standing army, and is first and foremost responsible for our country's security. They may oversee the building and maintenance of our interstate highway system. They may act as arbiters to help resolve disputes between states. They may help America establish and maintain trading relationships with other countries.
For better efficiency and less corruption, the Federal Government should contract the building and maintenance of the interstate highway system to private contractors. In a perfect world, the projects may be bid on by any company with the ability to complete them in line with the parameters required. American business should create a trade organization that takes the lead in negotiating trade agreements with foreign countries, with the agreements only required to fit withing the guidelines set by congress. A partnership between the private trade organization and the State Department should be forged, which would produce much less corrupt and more equitable trade policies than those created by the current government bureaucracy.
Citizen education and welfare is solely and specifically left to the states. If Massachusetts and California want to create a generous welfare system that takes 70 percent of wages away from earners to give to the non-productive residents, they have the freedom to do so. Conversely, if Texas and the Dakotas choose to take no income taxes and provide much lower benefits to their poor residents, they also have that freedom.
Liberals argue that such a system would overload the welfare systems of the most generous (or in their parlance, "fairest") states, which they claim is "unfair". But if the productive flock to the low-tax, low-regulation states and the non-productive flock to the high-tax, high welfare states, each state legislature and governor can blame nobody but themselves.
Liberals also argue that without federal oversight, states with the worst schools will sink lower. If anyone can give me a single example of a federally-imposed education policy that produced a measurable improvement in student performance, perhaps you can soften my bad attitude toward federal tyranny in education. I'm pretty certain that there are no such examples.
What if a handful of states do everything right and are able to entice many companies to locate there? What if their well-educated citizens become the best employees for those companies and are able to help those companies dominate the marketplace? It seems to me it would result in a few states becoming leaders, with the most prosperous citizens in the country.
Wouldn't it make sense that the states that don't perform very well in comparison might ask themselves, "what are they doing to be so successful?", and eventually decide to emulate them? As the most extremely liberal states fail, isn't it more likely that their unproductive citizens might begin to decide to try their luck finding a good job in a successful state? Who says we need a federal government to impose mediocrity on the country as a whole and call it "fair"?
Government exists to keep order, protect us from those who wish to do us harm, and sometimes provide things that are more difficult for individuals to do on their own. Freedom is the most important American value. Fairness tends to be found only in the eye of the beholder.
We now have a government that openly declares their primary value to be "fairness", and has yet to acknowledge any interest in freedom. Obama and Company define "fairness" as those things that benefit only them - that fails any reasonable test of the word.
Freedom!
We're a republic, not a democracy. We were founded to be a tolerant society, not a libertine anarchy. Freedom is the preeminent value of America.
We live in a time where people are demanding majority rule over a representative republic, and consequently have made it their mission to destroy all opposition to insure their majority by silencing their opponents. There are things public figures dare not say in public - those things may not get them put in jail, but they'll certainly be driven out of their jobs and forcibly banished to a life in hiding from the persecutors. Expressing any thoughts opposing or even questioning gay marriage, climate change, or abortion continues to cost high profile people their jobs. All at the same time as those on the left openly fantasize about assassinating George W. Bush and openly expressing their wish that Dick Cheney die from his heart condition.
The Federal Government must only be permitted those enumerated powers granted it by the Constitution. That means that nearly the entire alphabet soup of federal agencies should not exist. No department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection, Education, Communication, Public Broadcasting, Social Security, Health and Human Services, and so on ...
The Federal Government may provide the standing army, and is first and foremost responsible for our country's security. They may oversee the building and maintenance of our interstate highway system. They may act as arbiters to help resolve disputes between states. They may help America establish and maintain trading relationships with other countries.
For better efficiency and less corruption, the Federal Government should contract the building and maintenance of the interstate highway system to private contractors. In a perfect world, the projects may be bid on by any company with the ability to complete them in line with the parameters required. American business should create a trade organization that takes the lead in negotiating trade agreements with foreign countries, with the agreements only required to fit withing the guidelines set by congress. A partnership between the private trade organization and the State Department should be forged, which would produce much less corrupt and more equitable trade policies than those created by the current government bureaucracy.
Citizen education and welfare is solely and specifically left to the states. If Massachusetts and California want to create a generous welfare system that takes 70 percent of wages away from earners to give to the non-productive residents, they have the freedom to do so. Conversely, if Texas and the Dakotas choose to take no income taxes and provide much lower benefits to their poor residents, they also have that freedom.
Liberals argue that such a system would overload the welfare systems of the most generous (or in their parlance, "fairest") states, which they claim is "unfair". But if the productive flock to the low-tax, low-regulation states and the non-productive flock to the high-tax, high welfare states, each state legislature and governor can blame nobody but themselves.
Liberals also argue that without federal oversight, states with the worst schools will sink lower. If anyone can give me a single example of a federally-imposed education policy that produced a measurable improvement in student performance, perhaps you can soften my bad attitude toward federal tyranny in education. I'm pretty certain that there are no such examples.
What if a handful of states do everything right and are able to entice many companies to locate there? What if their well-educated citizens become the best employees for those companies and are able to help those companies dominate the marketplace? It seems to me it would result in a few states becoming leaders, with the most prosperous citizens in the country.
Wouldn't it make sense that the states that don't perform very well in comparison might ask themselves, "what are they doing to be so successful?", and eventually decide to emulate them? As the most extremely liberal states fail, isn't it more likely that their unproductive citizens might begin to decide to try their luck finding a good job in a successful state? Who says we need a federal government to impose mediocrity on the country as a whole and call it "fair"?
Government exists to keep order, protect us from those who wish to do us harm, and sometimes provide things that are more difficult for individuals to do on their own. Freedom is the most important American value. Fairness tends to be found only in the eye of the beholder.
We now have a government that openly declares their primary value to be "fairness", and has yet to acknowledge any interest in freedom. Obama and Company define "fairness" as those things that benefit only them - that fails any reasonable test of the word.
Freedom!
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Book Break
I'm taking a break from my little blog book.
The hot topics this week were Miley Cyrus and Syria. Miley's merely the next Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan, and deserves none of the attention she's getting. MTV should be taken down for showing that trash. No, I didn't watch, and I am avoiding it on the web. There's no point.
So let's tackle the more serious topic. It was over a year ago that Obama announced his "red line". Now that Assad has crossed it twice (or possibly more), our president is getting ready to retaliate. Once again, it's not about national security. It's not even about protecting Syrian citizens from their tyrannical dictator. It's only about Obama, as is everything else he does.
The irony of this president doing with Syria exactly what he and his supporters so viciously accused George W. Bush of doing in Iraq is certainly not lost on me. Although it sure is lost on all the media outlets. Oh well, such is life in wacky America.
If the plan is to take out Assad, that might be worthwhile. But they've already said it's not that. If the plan is to take out all of their chemical weapons, that would be a positive objective. But that ship's already sailed because the administration has announced their intentions. All Assad needs to do is move his weapons somewhere else so we bomb empty buildings.
So it looks like Obama's going to have the military launch a bunch of cruise missles that most likely will destroy a bunch of empty buildings in Syria. But at least he can say he took action!
Meanwhile there's a rally in Washington today memorializing Martin Luther King. Republicans were neither invited nor welcome, so it was merely a Democratic Party Rally.
The congressman who claim to be Republicans and claim to oppose Obamacare are trashing their colleagues who are trying to lead an effort to leave funding for that horrible law out of the next funding bill. There is no courage to be found among the Republican party leadership, which means the Democrats win.
Overall it's been a discouraging week.
The hot topics this week were Miley Cyrus and Syria. Miley's merely the next Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan, and deserves none of the attention she's getting. MTV should be taken down for showing that trash. No, I didn't watch, and I am avoiding it on the web. There's no point.
So let's tackle the more serious topic. It was over a year ago that Obama announced his "red line". Now that Assad has crossed it twice (or possibly more), our president is getting ready to retaliate. Once again, it's not about national security. It's not even about protecting Syrian citizens from their tyrannical dictator. It's only about Obama, as is everything else he does.
The irony of this president doing with Syria exactly what he and his supporters so viciously accused George W. Bush of doing in Iraq is certainly not lost on me. Although it sure is lost on all the media outlets. Oh well, such is life in wacky America.
If the plan is to take out Assad, that might be worthwhile. But they've already said it's not that. If the plan is to take out all of their chemical weapons, that would be a positive objective. But that ship's already sailed because the administration has announced their intentions. All Assad needs to do is move his weapons somewhere else so we bomb empty buildings.
So it looks like Obama's going to have the military launch a bunch of cruise missles that most likely will destroy a bunch of empty buildings in Syria. But at least he can say he took action!
Meanwhile there's a rally in Washington today memorializing Martin Luther King. Republicans were neither invited nor welcome, so it was merely a Democratic Party Rally.
The congressman who claim to be Republicans and claim to oppose Obamacare are trashing their colleagues who are trying to lead an effort to leave funding for that horrible law out of the next funding bill. There is no courage to be found among the Republican party leadership, which means the Democrats win.
Overall it's been a discouraging week.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 9: Welfare
One of the major points of contention between conservatives and liberals is about how generous the government should be in providing an economic "safety net" to those who find themselves in poverty. As president Obama moves forward in his second term, we've seen a massive explosion in the welfare rolls. Huge increases have been seen since Obama took office in the number of Americans receiving Food Stamps, Disability Benefits, Housing Assistance, Medicaid, and benefiting from myriad other federal, state, and local programs created to assist the poor.
As a Roman Catholic Christian, I believe it's important for me to do what I can to help people who need it. Therefore I've got firsthand experience dealing with the poor and their problems.
During a training class I attended to prepare me to become a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), perhaps the most memorable thing I learned was this:
There are two basic categories of the poor. The temporary poor, and the permanent poor. The temporary poor are the people who have suffered a setback of some sort. They've lost their wealth to divorce, a lawsuit, a business failure, or a medical bankruptcy. These temporary poor don't like being poor, and are highly motivated to escape that condition. Therefore, these are the easiest people to help. All they need is temporary assistance to get past their immediate problems, but once they get back on their feet they will rapidly become self-sufficient and no longer need or want assistance.
The permanent poor, however, are much more difficult to help. Because they are often third or fourth generation poor, and being dependent on services from the government and charity is a way of life. You could reasonably say that their profession involves maximizing their benefits. These folks make it their business to know about all of the government programs that will give them money, housing, food stamps, and other benefits. They also know about all of the local charities and their rules, and show up at the charities for whatever handouts are offered. The permanent poor have no intention of finding a job and becoming self-sufficient; in fact, they can't even imagine such a lifestyle.
In my experience working with the poor, most are high school dropouts or if they graduated high school did so just barely. Many of them are illiterate and have no idea how to do simple things like balance a checkbook or go grocery shopping with a budget and a meal plan. They often lack basic skills in simple things such as cooking, cleaning, or basic home repair.
The welfare mom is a modern tragedy. Imagine a young woman, 20 or 21 years old, who is raising 4 children on welfare. The first of her 4 children was born when she was only 14 or 15, sometimes younger. The father of that child is almost always an adult, and should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. But the overloaded social services agencies are too overloaded to pursue justice in those cases, because they are so common.
The welfare mom doesn't marry any of her baby daddies because if she were to do so she would lose her benefits. Those benefits are significant, and if we added up the value of all of them we would find that she's making a much better living from taxpayers than she ever could working as a clerk at the local fast food restaurant or convenience store. Baby momma gets a decent house, paid for by HUD. She gets free healthcare, courtesy of Medicaid. She gets hundreds of dollars worth of Food Stamps, now issued on a debit-like card called EBT. And she maximizes her monthly welfare salary check by virtue of her 4 children, giving her plenty of spending money.
She probably has a boyfriend, who may or may not be the father of one of her children. He lives with her, but knows that if he gets caught it could result in a reduction in her benefits. In most cases I've observed personally, the house has little to no furniture, aside from the 50-inch flat screen TV in the living room. The house is a mess, with dirty clothes piled up in every room that have been soiled by the dog(s) and/or cat(s) that roam the house.
In many cases, baby momma is addicted. Unfortunately that can mean she sells her food stamps to get more money to buy her drugs and there's nothing in the house for the kids to eat. So if the kids are in school, they get fed there. Or they figure out where they can go to get a free meal and fend for themselves. Also, the kids have to be wary of the boyfriend. He's more likely than not to abuse them, molest them sexually, or both.
The poor have their own neighborhood watch. Only they're not watching for criminals. They're watching for cops and social workers. They have elaborate alarm systems, that alert everyone on the block when the social worker is driving up. The boyfriends all high-tail it out the back door and disappear, knowing that if they're caught in the house they might have to answer some uncomfortable questions or perhaps even get arrested.
My conclusion is that the welfare system is broken. Republicans got Bill Clinton to sign their Welfare Reform bill in the 90's, which make a huge impact on getting people more self-sufficient and into the job market. But president Obama has repealed that law without the approval of congress (I still can't figure out how he got away with that) and has reverted the system back to the bad old days.
If I were in charge, I'd have to realize we can't move so many millions of unwed baby mommas off the rolls overnight. But I would set up programs that form partnerships between the government agencies and charities, with the goal of eliminating duplication. I would build incentives for the government agencies whereby they are rewarded for the number of people they get off the welfare rolls, rather than current policies that reward them for bringing more people onto those rolls. The stated goal for all government social services agencies will be to work themselves out of a job, when the day comes that nobody needs them anymore. Perhaps that would be achievable someday and the charitable organizations could meet all of the needs of the relative few who hit a string of bad luck.
Addiction treatment would be an important component in freeing up welfare moms so they can hold down a job. Although I'm not a fan of daycare, it would also need to be a component in removing one of the biggest obstacles to welfare moms taking a job.
It is past time to stop the nonsense of the popular culture, which encourages irresponsible behavior that leads people to illegitimacy. Leaders, churches, and schools must be united in spreading a positive message to everyone that our best chance for a happy and prosperous life is to find and marry someone for life and become partners in raising smart and successfuly children.
There is a category of people that need outside assistance to survive. That category is the physically and mentally disabled. Our government has turned the mentally disabled out and closed their hospitals, causing chaos. (Evidenced by just about all of the mass shootings we keep hearing about, for example). My preference would be to see the churches and charities band together to take care of these folks when their families cannot. But I wouldn't raise a fuss if the government decided to re-open the mental hospitals for the low-functioning people who will never be able to live independently. And of course the physically disabled deserve whatever help we can provide them.
This is a multi-generational problem that was begun by Lyndon Johnson. It was only briefly solved in Clinton's second term and through the Bush years, but now has reverted back to the dysfunction we see today. It can be resolved, but not until we elect people smart and principled enough to enact the right solutions.
As a Roman Catholic Christian, I believe it's important for me to do what I can to help people who need it. Therefore I've got firsthand experience dealing with the poor and their problems.
During a training class I attended to prepare me to become a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), perhaps the most memorable thing I learned was this:
There are two basic categories of the poor. The temporary poor, and the permanent poor. The temporary poor are the people who have suffered a setback of some sort. They've lost their wealth to divorce, a lawsuit, a business failure, or a medical bankruptcy. These temporary poor don't like being poor, and are highly motivated to escape that condition. Therefore, these are the easiest people to help. All they need is temporary assistance to get past their immediate problems, but once they get back on their feet they will rapidly become self-sufficient and no longer need or want assistance.
The permanent poor, however, are much more difficult to help. Because they are often third or fourth generation poor, and being dependent on services from the government and charity is a way of life. You could reasonably say that their profession involves maximizing their benefits. These folks make it their business to know about all of the government programs that will give them money, housing, food stamps, and other benefits. They also know about all of the local charities and their rules, and show up at the charities for whatever handouts are offered. The permanent poor have no intention of finding a job and becoming self-sufficient; in fact, they can't even imagine such a lifestyle.
In my experience working with the poor, most are high school dropouts or if they graduated high school did so just barely. Many of them are illiterate and have no idea how to do simple things like balance a checkbook or go grocery shopping with a budget and a meal plan. They often lack basic skills in simple things such as cooking, cleaning, or basic home repair.
The welfare mom is a modern tragedy. Imagine a young woman, 20 or 21 years old, who is raising 4 children on welfare. The first of her 4 children was born when she was only 14 or 15, sometimes younger. The father of that child is almost always an adult, and should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. But the overloaded social services agencies are too overloaded to pursue justice in those cases, because they are so common.
The welfare mom doesn't marry any of her baby daddies because if she were to do so she would lose her benefits. Those benefits are significant, and if we added up the value of all of them we would find that she's making a much better living from taxpayers than she ever could working as a clerk at the local fast food restaurant or convenience store. Baby momma gets a decent house, paid for by HUD. She gets free healthcare, courtesy of Medicaid. She gets hundreds of dollars worth of Food Stamps, now issued on a debit-like card called EBT. And she maximizes her monthly welfare salary check by virtue of her 4 children, giving her plenty of spending money.
She probably has a boyfriend, who may or may not be the father of one of her children. He lives with her, but knows that if he gets caught it could result in a reduction in her benefits. In most cases I've observed personally, the house has little to no furniture, aside from the 50-inch flat screen TV in the living room. The house is a mess, with dirty clothes piled up in every room that have been soiled by the dog(s) and/or cat(s) that roam the house.
In many cases, baby momma is addicted. Unfortunately that can mean she sells her food stamps to get more money to buy her drugs and there's nothing in the house for the kids to eat. So if the kids are in school, they get fed there. Or they figure out where they can go to get a free meal and fend for themselves. Also, the kids have to be wary of the boyfriend. He's more likely than not to abuse them, molest them sexually, or both.
The poor have their own neighborhood watch. Only they're not watching for criminals. They're watching for cops and social workers. They have elaborate alarm systems, that alert everyone on the block when the social worker is driving up. The boyfriends all high-tail it out the back door and disappear, knowing that if they're caught in the house they might have to answer some uncomfortable questions or perhaps even get arrested.
My conclusion is that the welfare system is broken. Republicans got Bill Clinton to sign their Welfare Reform bill in the 90's, which make a huge impact on getting people more self-sufficient and into the job market. But president Obama has repealed that law without the approval of congress (I still can't figure out how he got away with that) and has reverted the system back to the bad old days.
If I were in charge, I'd have to realize we can't move so many millions of unwed baby mommas off the rolls overnight. But I would set up programs that form partnerships between the government agencies and charities, with the goal of eliminating duplication. I would build incentives for the government agencies whereby they are rewarded for the number of people they get off the welfare rolls, rather than current policies that reward them for bringing more people onto those rolls. The stated goal for all government social services agencies will be to work themselves out of a job, when the day comes that nobody needs them anymore. Perhaps that would be achievable someday and the charitable organizations could meet all of the needs of the relative few who hit a string of bad luck.
Addiction treatment would be an important component in freeing up welfare moms so they can hold down a job. Although I'm not a fan of daycare, it would also need to be a component in removing one of the biggest obstacles to welfare moms taking a job.
It is past time to stop the nonsense of the popular culture, which encourages irresponsible behavior that leads people to illegitimacy. Leaders, churches, and schools must be united in spreading a positive message to everyone that our best chance for a happy and prosperous life is to find and marry someone for life and become partners in raising smart and successfuly children.
There is a category of people that need outside assistance to survive. That category is the physically and mentally disabled. Our government has turned the mentally disabled out and closed their hospitals, causing chaos. (Evidenced by just about all of the mass shootings we keep hearing about, for example). My preference would be to see the churches and charities band together to take care of these folks when their families cannot. But I wouldn't raise a fuss if the government decided to re-open the mental hospitals for the low-functioning people who will never be able to live independently. And of course the physically disabled deserve whatever help we can provide them.
This is a multi-generational problem that was begun by Lyndon Johnson. It was only briefly solved in Clinton's second term and through the Bush years, but now has reverted back to the dysfunction we see today. It can be resolved, but not until we elect people smart and principled enough to enact the right solutions.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 8: Education
The case can be made and has been made by many that many of our country's most serious problems can be traced to a root cause which is the dismal failure that is our education system. Liberals propose solutions that involve ever-increasing intervention by the Federal Government, plus of course throwing lots more money at the teachers. Republicans (which I'm purposely separating from Conservatives on this issue) seem to like testing and grading as a tool to shame poor-performing schools to turn things around "or else".
I come from a family of teachers, and must reluctantly admit to having been a teacher once a long time ago. This is a topic I think I'm qualified to address, and let me start by stating that Republicans and Democrats are both wrong. Certainly my teacher friends and family would happily accept more money, but even they would have to admit that just paying them more won't solve the intransigent problems in our schools.
What everyone must come to realize is that our schools reflect us. Kids don't learn because their parents don't value their education. So let's start with the lower levels and work our way up.
I entered elementary school in the 60's. It was so exciting for me to start with half-day Kindergarten at age 5. But only 2 months into the school year, we moved across town to the more prosperous and growing side, where the elementary school had not yet begun to offer Kindergarten. So my parents let me go to my old Kindergarten class' Halloween party, then I waited impatiently the rest of the school year to turn 6 and be allowed to enter my new school as a first grader.
My elementary education was excellent, at least from my memory. Every subject challenged me. I was pretty much average within my class. I was below average in Math and Science. I was horrible in Handwriting and Art Class. But I excelled at Reading and Spelling, and won all my class spelling bees.
What actually took me by surprise was the fact that as I moved up into Junior High (it wasn't called Middle School in those days) and High School, I found myself ascending steadily to the top of the class in most subjects. Except Science and Art, both of which remained elusive and mysterious to me the rest of my life - I wouldn't be any good at Art still today, although I like to think I might be able to pass a Science class by now.
Why did I become a top-flight college-bound student, while so many of my classmates faded well behind? I think the answer is very simple: because my parents cared, and consequently I also cared. So many of my classmates had no parental pressure to succeed, or the parental pressure was more focused on athletic pursuits. Sure, I was an athlete, and also a band member.
So by high school, I felt a bit like a freak. Our school had distinct social groups; the jocks, the band, the eggheads, the hoods, and the heads. In case you aren't familiar with the lingo, I'll translate in the same order: Athletes, Musicians, Geeks, Delinquents, and Hippies.
The reason I thought I was a freak was that I belonged to multiple groups. I was a member of the jocks, band, and eggheads. Although I didn't hang out much with hoods or heads, I sometimes felt more welcome among them than among the jocks. The social rules were puzzling, and very difficult to navigate for me as an adolescent teenager. I'm sure many people wish they had been less concerned with being "cool" during those years - I know if I had the self-confidence to just be myself, I would have been much happier.
What does all this have to do with education? That's the best question. It has nothing to do with education. And everything. It means that kids are more influenced by their peers than by any adults. So being a member of the band, egghead, and to a lesser degree the jocks group meant I was destined for college. The other groups didn't stand a chance. What's unique is that with few exceptions, these groups were all insular. You belonged to one, not several. Yes, there were a handful of jocks in the band, but many of the other guys disdained the company of their fellow band members. Yet as far as I can recall, there were no other jocks in the egghead group. It must have been some kind of social suicide for a jock to be seen with the eggheads - perhaps that partly explains my feeling of being a freakish exception. Your group affiliation determined your future.
So in the early 70's while I was in high school, the hippies became our teachers. And they were strange people who introduced us to strange ideas. Not the math and science teachers, of course - they remained the same nerdy guys with pocket-protectors they always have been. But the other teachers did weird stuff: They started wearing jeans and tie-dyed t-shirts to class. They were using modern slang and trying to be our friends rather than our teachers. They tried to influence us to always question authority, disrespect our parents and especially politicians and administrators, and abandon our parents' stodgy old religion.
In the meantime, I coasted through high school. Nothing was hard, except my Chemistry class, in which I was lost from day one and never did figure out how to understand that old periodic table. I had a couple of outstanding teachers though, one math and the other English literature and composition. They actually forced me to apply myself to find and use my brain, and I'll always be thankful to both of them.
What if we could deliver children to our schools who are ready to learn and excited to learn? What if behavior problems could be all but eliminated? What if we eradicated drugs and assault and sexual behavior and make our schools safe for all students? What if we could influence social groups to become less exclusive and made up of a majority of kids who really want to learn?
It starts with rebuilding the family. Many of the things I talk about in the other chapters are focused on that fundamental solution. Other solutions like mentoring programs and the adult education that might be offered in my post titled "Life Academy" can help rebuild the family. Every child must have the message hammered into them on a daily basis - "Knowledge is power". Kids need to be indoctrinated to a single theme - if you want to be successful in life, learn as much as you possibly can in school.
I favor breaking up the mega-schools and going back to neighborhood schools. When the "experts" proclaimed that we needed to build these huge schools and close the little neighborhood and small-town schools, they said it would provide efficiency and improve the education experience. I don't think it did either, and we all have seen the depths to which educational outcomes have sunk. Why should schools be public? Let's encourage lots of private schools as well. I'm a Voucher fan when they provide an escape route for children stuck in failing public schools.
Implement innovation in education, using technology and the Internet to deliver content and turn the focus of schools from rigid classroom education to a varied experience that we can measure by how much kids learned, not how good they are at raising their hand to be recognized by the teacher to speak.
Stop marching kids in lockstep with their class. If a kid is advanced in English but a bit behind in Math, let her skip to the next level English class and fall back to the next lower level Math class. Graduation needs to mean you've met the requirements - if you meet them at age 16, you graduate at 16. If it takes you until age 19, you graduate at 19. Partner with community colleges to let the advanced students get started with their college career while they're finishing high school.
Most of all, make the primary mission of each and every teacher in each and every school to get their children inspired to learn. Then just give them the resources and guidance and help them learn!
I come from a family of teachers, and must reluctantly admit to having been a teacher once a long time ago. This is a topic I think I'm qualified to address, and let me start by stating that Republicans and Democrats are both wrong. Certainly my teacher friends and family would happily accept more money, but even they would have to admit that just paying them more won't solve the intransigent problems in our schools.
What everyone must come to realize is that our schools reflect us. Kids don't learn because their parents don't value their education. So let's start with the lower levels and work our way up.
I entered elementary school in the 60's. It was so exciting for me to start with half-day Kindergarten at age 5. But only 2 months into the school year, we moved across town to the more prosperous and growing side, where the elementary school had not yet begun to offer Kindergarten. So my parents let me go to my old Kindergarten class' Halloween party, then I waited impatiently the rest of the school year to turn 6 and be allowed to enter my new school as a first grader.
My elementary education was excellent, at least from my memory. Every subject challenged me. I was pretty much average within my class. I was below average in Math and Science. I was horrible in Handwriting and Art Class. But I excelled at Reading and Spelling, and won all my class spelling bees.
What actually took me by surprise was the fact that as I moved up into Junior High (it wasn't called Middle School in those days) and High School, I found myself ascending steadily to the top of the class in most subjects. Except Science and Art, both of which remained elusive and mysterious to me the rest of my life - I wouldn't be any good at Art still today, although I like to think I might be able to pass a Science class by now.
Why did I become a top-flight college-bound student, while so many of my classmates faded well behind? I think the answer is very simple: because my parents cared, and consequently I also cared. So many of my classmates had no parental pressure to succeed, or the parental pressure was more focused on athletic pursuits. Sure, I was an athlete, and also a band member.
So by high school, I felt a bit like a freak. Our school had distinct social groups; the jocks, the band, the eggheads, the hoods, and the heads. In case you aren't familiar with the lingo, I'll translate in the same order: Athletes, Musicians, Geeks, Delinquents, and Hippies.
The reason I thought I was a freak was that I belonged to multiple groups. I was a member of the jocks, band, and eggheads. Although I didn't hang out much with hoods or heads, I sometimes felt more welcome among them than among the jocks. The social rules were puzzling, and very difficult to navigate for me as an adolescent teenager. I'm sure many people wish they had been less concerned with being "cool" during those years - I know if I had the self-confidence to just be myself, I would have been much happier.
What does all this have to do with education? That's the best question. It has nothing to do with education. And everything. It means that kids are more influenced by their peers than by any adults. So being a member of the band, egghead, and to a lesser degree the jocks group meant I was destined for college. The other groups didn't stand a chance. What's unique is that with few exceptions, these groups were all insular. You belonged to one, not several. Yes, there were a handful of jocks in the band, but many of the other guys disdained the company of their fellow band members. Yet as far as I can recall, there were no other jocks in the egghead group. It must have been some kind of social suicide for a jock to be seen with the eggheads - perhaps that partly explains my feeling of being a freakish exception. Your group affiliation determined your future.
So in the early 70's while I was in high school, the hippies became our teachers. And they were strange people who introduced us to strange ideas. Not the math and science teachers, of course - they remained the same nerdy guys with pocket-protectors they always have been. But the other teachers did weird stuff: They started wearing jeans and tie-dyed t-shirts to class. They were using modern slang and trying to be our friends rather than our teachers. They tried to influence us to always question authority, disrespect our parents and especially politicians and administrators, and abandon our parents' stodgy old religion.
In the meantime, I coasted through high school. Nothing was hard, except my Chemistry class, in which I was lost from day one and never did figure out how to understand that old periodic table. I had a couple of outstanding teachers though, one math and the other English literature and composition. They actually forced me to apply myself to find and use my brain, and I'll always be thankful to both of them.
What if we could deliver children to our schools who are ready to learn and excited to learn? What if behavior problems could be all but eliminated? What if we eradicated drugs and assault and sexual behavior and make our schools safe for all students? What if we could influence social groups to become less exclusive and made up of a majority of kids who really want to learn?
It starts with rebuilding the family. Many of the things I talk about in the other chapters are focused on that fundamental solution. Other solutions like mentoring programs and the adult education that might be offered in my post titled "Life Academy" can help rebuild the family. Every child must have the message hammered into them on a daily basis - "Knowledge is power". Kids need to be indoctrinated to a single theme - if you want to be successful in life, learn as much as you possibly can in school.
I favor breaking up the mega-schools and going back to neighborhood schools. When the "experts" proclaimed that we needed to build these huge schools and close the little neighborhood and small-town schools, they said it would provide efficiency and improve the education experience. I don't think it did either, and we all have seen the depths to which educational outcomes have sunk. Why should schools be public? Let's encourage lots of private schools as well. I'm a Voucher fan when they provide an escape route for children stuck in failing public schools.
Implement innovation in education, using technology and the Internet to deliver content and turn the focus of schools from rigid classroom education to a varied experience that we can measure by how much kids learned, not how good they are at raising their hand to be recognized by the teacher to speak.
Stop marching kids in lockstep with their class. If a kid is advanced in English but a bit behind in Math, let her skip to the next level English class and fall back to the next lower level Math class. Graduation needs to mean you've met the requirements - if you meet them at age 16, you graduate at 16. If it takes you until age 19, you graduate at 19. Partner with community colleges to let the advanced students get started with their college career while they're finishing high school.
Most of all, make the primary mission of each and every teacher in each and every school to get their children inspired to learn. Then just give them the resources and guidance and help them learn!
Saturday, August 24, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 7: Energy
I was a fifth grader when we saw a film about our cooling planet. Scientists were predicting that an Ice Age was on the way within the next 20 years. Because of course humans were putting so many contaminants in the air that they were blocking the sun's rays. And right around that time the scientists were reporting that our average temperatures were cooling.
Sound familiar? Only this time those contaminants we humans keep pumping into the air aren't bringing a new Ice Age - this time they're giving the planet a "fever", at least according to the eminent climate scientist Al Gore.
We also were treated to frequent film strips telling us about overpopulation. Why, if we didn't stop having so many children, the billions of people on the planet would strip it bare of resources.
When I graduated from High School, gas prices were climbing at the pump. We had already experienced the first OPEC oil embargo, which turned out to be sort of a dry run for the new association of middle eastern countries. OPEC was formed by those countries who had nationalized their energy companies and sent their sons to be educated in American universities. Those sons went home and helped their dictator fathers collaborate with the other dictatorships in oil-producing nations to control production in order to drive up prices and make them rich.
Fast-forward to today. American companies have figured out how to get oil out of massive shale deposits in the Dakotas, and the Canadians are producing massive amounts of oil just to the north. So a pipeline was recently proposed to pump the crude down to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, we elected a president who is a soldier for the cause of eliminating fossil fuels as a source of energy. Either he is incredibly naive to think we can power our homes and factories and cars and trucks exclusively with windmills and solar panels, or (more likely) is bent on chopping America down to size, so we're no longer the world's economic powerhouse.
The president has also padlocked all public lands, where in several cases there lie vast untapped energy reserves. He has also ordered his EPA to issue draconian regulations intended to bankrupt the coal industry, which has traditionally provided the majority of electric power to the country. I don't think he's doing all that because he's stupid - rather I'm pretty well convinced he's doing it because he wants to destroy America's wealth and make sure we are no longer a world superpower.
So if I'm in charge, obviously I'd open up public lands for oil exploration, especially ANWR in Alaska. I'd immediately approve the pipeline, and use it to carry Canadian crude as well as the crude from the Dakotas to refineries. I'd flood the market with American oil, effectively neutering OPEC once and for all. I'd reverse all of the Obama regulations on coal, but work hard to find ways to work with the industry to make "clean coal technologies" affordable to keep the pollution levels from rising to those being experienced in China today.
I'd also cut the Federal fuel tax rates and encourage states to do the same. Ordinary Americans need lower gas prices at the pump so they can afford to drive themselves to work every day. We need to make work a better choice than welfare (and unemployment) once again.
Something Obama may or may not understand is that energy drives commerce. We need as much cheap energy as we can produce to transport goods, transport ourselves to work, heat and cool our homes, and run our factories. It's time to stop abusing our rights to cheap energy.
It's also well past time to bring the hammer down on monopolies. Most of our oil production is relegated to about 2 or 3 global companies that earn more than most countries each year. It's time to bring competition back to the marketplace. We need to bring antitrust suits against these mega-companies and break them up. We need to lower the barriers to entry into the marketplace to encourage more competitors to enter.
Ultimately, these are the steps that will bring American prosperity back and improve the lives of every American. The president is on precisely the wrong path, which is already proving disastrous to the American standard of living.
Sound familiar? Only this time those contaminants we humans keep pumping into the air aren't bringing a new Ice Age - this time they're giving the planet a "fever", at least according to the eminent climate scientist Al Gore.
We also were treated to frequent film strips telling us about overpopulation. Why, if we didn't stop having so many children, the billions of people on the planet would strip it bare of resources.
When I graduated from High School, gas prices were climbing at the pump. We had already experienced the first OPEC oil embargo, which turned out to be sort of a dry run for the new association of middle eastern countries. OPEC was formed by those countries who had nationalized their energy companies and sent their sons to be educated in American universities. Those sons went home and helped their dictator fathers collaborate with the other dictatorships in oil-producing nations to control production in order to drive up prices and make them rich.
Fast-forward to today. American companies have figured out how to get oil out of massive shale deposits in the Dakotas, and the Canadians are producing massive amounts of oil just to the north. So a pipeline was recently proposed to pump the crude down to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, we elected a president who is a soldier for the cause of eliminating fossil fuels as a source of energy. Either he is incredibly naive to think we can power our homes and factories and cars and trucks exclusively with windmills and solar panels, or (more likely) is bent on chopping America down to size, so we're no longer the world's economic powerhouse.
The president has also padlocked all public lands, where in several cases there lie vast untapped energy reserves. He has also ordered his EPA to issue draconian regulations intended to bankrupt the coal industry, which has traditionally provided the majority of electric power to the country. I don't think he's doing all that because he's stupid - rather I'm pretty well convinced he's doing it because he wants to destroy America's wealth and make sure we are no longer a world superpower.
So if I'm in charge, obviously I'd open up public lands for oil exploration, especially ANWR in Alaska. I'd immediately approve the pipeline, and use it to carry Canadian crude as well as the crude from the Dakotas to refineries. I'd flood the market with American oil, effectively neutering OPEC once and for all. I'd reverse all of the Obama regulations on coal, but work hard to find ways to work with the industry to make "clean coal technologies" affordable to keep the pollution levels from rising to those being experienced in China today.
I'd also cut the Federal fuel tax rates and encourage states to do the same. Ordinary Americans need lower gas prices at the pump so they can afford to drive themselves to work every day. We need to make work a better choice than welfare (and unemployment) once again.
Something Obama may or may not understand is that energy drives commerce. We need as much cheap energy as we can produce to transport goods, transport ourselves to work, heat and cool our homes, and run our factories. It's time to stop abusing our rights to cheap energy.
It's also well past time to bring the hammer down on monopolies. Most of our oil production is relegated to about 2 or 3 global companies that earn more than most countries each year. It's time to bring competition back to the marketplace. We need to bring antitrust suits against these mega-companies and break them up. We need to lower the barriers to entry into the marketplace to encourage more competitors to enter.
Ultimately, these are the steps that will bring American prosperity back and improve the lives of every American. The president is on precisely the wrong path, which is already proving disastrous to the American standard of living.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 6: Liberal Social Priorities
I heard a liberal somewhere recently proclaim that the most important issue in America today is the right to Gay Marriage. Liberals also fight with a sort of religious zeal the "right" to abortion. President Obama himself often extolls his belief that every citizen has the "right" to healthcare.
Throughout the entire history of mankind, nearly every civilization has supported the institution of marriage. And until the second millenium after Jesus Christ, there has never been a historical account of a single civilization creating a new definition of marriage other than the one we've all understood. One man, one woman, make babies, have a family, raise your family to carry on your civil society.
OK, there have been civilizations where powerful and wealthy men maintained multiple wives. Solomon sounds like he just might have been the most prolific husband in recorded history, with too many wives to count. But even the Romans, who were reputed by their own historians to dally with young boys often, never proposed laws to recognize "marriage" with the boys.
So the homosexual activists of today are rather touchy about the fact that Christianity frowns on their activities. They want to force people to accept their behavior as perfectly normal, or perhaps even laudable. Homosexuals are no different from pedophiles or bisexuals or polyamorists or bigamists. They are just as able to rein in their desires as the others, they just want special treatment that they don't necessarily advocate for them. It's not about your desires, it's about whether you choose to act on them.
Just from personal observation, I have been noticing that homosexual males cultivate their look to approximate a 12 year old boy. Strangely enough, it seems that many lesbian women seem to be going for the same look. Hmm. It would seem that it is very dangerous out there these days for 12 year old boys.
Anyway, they don't want to get married. I just saw a speech online given by a lesbian activist who openly admitted that fact. She doesn't care about marriage, she cares about the destruction of the religious institution called "marriage". Getting the state to recognize same-sex marriage cheapens the institution to the point where nobody will want to get married. It's already happening.
The irrefutable fact is that we do permanant damage to children when we destroy the insitution of marriage. And we can't lay all the blame on the homosexuals. Epidemic levels of divorce has done plenty to destroy the institution without their help. Men and women, some of whom I've known over the years, treat their solemn and holy marital vows as irrelevant to their own feelings and pursuit of happiness.
When people get bored with their partner, they throw out that vow that promised "till death do us part" and found somebody else. Divorce is so common it resembles high school kids "breaking up" with their girlfriend/boyfriend in order to move onto a new flame. The only problem is that the spouse he's broken up with is the mother of his two or three children. While he's messing around with his exciting new squeeze, the ex-wife is raising children who (rightly) believe their Dad has abandoned them.
If I'm in charge, all talk of gay marriage ends. If homosexuals want to go out in the woods and make promises to each other in front of some Pagan priestess and call themselves married, that's none of my business. Just don't make me pay taxes to provide them with health insurance or survivor benefits or spousal social security.
Divorce becomes much more difficult. "No-Fault" divorces come to an abrupt end. If one or the other spouse wants a divorce so he or she can hook up with somebody new, fine - take the clothes on your back, maybe your car so you can get to work, and start over from scratch. The innocent spouse gets everything, including custody of the children.
If both spouses want to divorce for other reasons, then an equal division of property is appropriate. If the spouse filing for divorce is doing so because they caught the other partner in adultery, the cuckolded spouse gets to decide how much property the court may grant to the other.
Non-custodial spouses never are free of their financial responsibilities to their children. Child Support must be imposed on every non-custodial spouse, but must be tailored to the paying spouse's level of income. It seems reasonable to me that child support payments should have a cap of no more than half of the non-custodial spouse's income. Details could be worked out, but the basic principle stands.
Abortion should never have become the law of the land and should be illegal. Just to head off the common arguments focusing on a tiny percentage of abortions, those exceptions are open to discussion. Rape, pregnancies that endanger the life and/or health of the mother, and other such arguments can be resolved. If we could somehow move beyond the abortion-on-demand reality of today, I'd be more than happy to engage in negotiations over the rare exceptions.
What if we had a country (or world) where most people got married and stayed married? What if they had children and raised them with actual moral values and a sense of responsibility and a sound work ethic? What if we rewarded responsible behavior and discouraged irresponsible behavior? Just imagine how safe and prosperous we would be.
Throughout the entire history of mankind, nearly every civilization has supported the institution of marriage. And until the second millenium after Jesus Christ, there has never been a historical account of a single civilization creating a new definition of marriage other than the one we've all understood. One man, one woman, make babies, have a family, raise your family to carry on your civil society.
OK, there have been civilizations where powerful and wealthy men maintained multiple wives. Solomon sounds like he just might have been the most prolific husband in recorded history, with too many wives to count. But even the Romans, who were reputed by their own historians to dally with young boys often, never proposed laws to recognize "marriage" with the boys.
So the homosexual activists of today are rather touchy about the fact that Christianity frowns on their activities. They want to force people to accept their behavior as perfectly normal, or perhaps even laudable. Homosexuals are no different from pedophiles or bisexuals or polyamorists or bigamists. They are just as able to rein in their desires as the others, they just want special treatment that they don't necessarily advocate for them. It's not about your desires, it's about whether you choose to act on them.
Just from personal observation, I have been noticing that homosexual males cultivate their look to approximate a 12 year old boy. Strangely enough, it seems that many lesbian women seem to be going for the same look. Hmm. It would seem that it is very dangerous out there these days for 12 year old boys.
Anyway, they don't want to get married. I just saw a speech online given by a lesbian activist who openly admitted that fact. She doesn't care about marriage, she cares about the destruction of the religious institution called "marriage". Getting the state to recognize same-sex marriage cheapens the institution to the point where nobody will want to get married. It's already happening.
The irrefutable fact is that we do permanant damage to children when we destroy the insitution of marriage. And we can't lay all the blame on the homosexuals. Epidemic levels of divorce has done plenty to destroy the institution without their help. Men and women, some of whom I've known over the years, treat their solemn and holy marital vows as irrelevant to their own feelings and pursuit of happiness.
When people get bored with their partner, they throw out that vow that promised "till death do us part" and found somebody else. Divorce is so common it resembles high school kids "breaking up" with their girlfriend/boyfriend in order to move onto a new flame. The only problem is that the spouse he's broken up with is the mother of his two or three children. While he's messing around with his exciting new squeeze, the ex-wife is raising children who (rightly) believe their Dad has abandoned them.
If I'm in charge, all talk of gay marriage ends. If homosexuals want to go out in the woods and make promises to each other in front of some Pagan priestess and call themselves married, that's none of my business. Just don't make me pay taxes to provide them with health insurance or survivor benefits or spousal social security.
Divorce becomes much more difficult. "No-Fault" divorces come to an abrupt end. If one or the other spouse wants a divorce so he or she can hook up with somebody new, fine - take the clothes on your back, maybe your car so you can get to work, and start over from scratch. The innocent spouse gets everything, including custody of the children.
If both spouses want to divorce for other reasons, then an equal division of property is appropriate. If the spouse filing for divorce is doing so because they caught the other partner in adultery, the cuckolded spouse gets to decide how much property the court may grant to the other.
Non-custodial spouses never are free of their financial responsibilities to their children. Child Support must be imposed on every non-custodial spouse, but must be tailored to the paying spouse's level of income. It seems reasonable to me that child support payments should have a cap of no more than half of the non-custodial spouse's income. Details could be worked out, but the basic principle stands.
Abortion should never have become the law of the land and should be illegal. Just to head off the common arguments focusing on a tiny percentage of abortions, those exceptions are open to discussion. Rape, pregnancies that endanger the life and/or health of the mother, and other such arguments can be resolved. If we could somehow move beyond the abortion-on-demand reality of today, I'd be more than happy to engage in negotiations over the rare exceptions.
What if we had a country (or world) where most people got married and stayed married? What if they had children and raised them with actual moral values and a sense of responsibility and a sound work ethic? What if we rewarded responsible behavior and discouraged irresponsible behavior? Just imagine how safe and prosperous we would be.
Monday, August 19, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 5: Church and State
The United States of America was founded as a place people could come to escape religious persecution. The Founding Fathers enshrined freedom of religion in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights. But the Athiestic Communists from the Left have been chipping away at that freedom for 50 years, and are on the cusp of turning America into just another state where people are not free to practice their religion.
Europeans flocked to America when their small start-up Protestant sects were suppressed by the holy mother Catholic church. In an unfortunate and dark period of history, the bishops often wielded more power than the elected officials across the former Roman empire. That meant they became corrupt, driving a priest named Martin Luther to rebel.
As the corrupt bishops felt their power slipping through their fingers with the popularity of Lutheranism, lots of other protesting folks broke away to found their own churches independent of Rome. My own ancestry research uncovered the suggestion that my Great times 8 Grandfather Johan may have emigrated from Alsace, France to New York City in 1709 to escape the Church's persecution. Family members were jailed and their property confiscated because they had committed the mortal sin of abandoning the Holy Catholic Church to join a start-up Protestant Anabaptist Church.
What liberals did years ago was dig up an old letter penned by Thomas Jefferson, from which they grabbed an out-of-context phrase "wall of separation between church and state". They trumpeted that phrase and dishonestly claimed it meant that there can be no expression of faith in any public forum. So bible lessons and prayer were outlawed from the schools. Attempts continue to be made frequently to outlaw prayer from city council meetings, eliminate the ten commandments from courtrooms and courthouse lawns, and silence those who might dare to pray before school sporting events or at commencement ceremonies.
What most Americans do not know today is that the original intent of the First Amendment, supported fully by Jefferson himself despite the misused phrase from his letter, was to eliminate the direct interference of religious organizations with governing. It doesn't mean we can't pray in public or at public gatherings, but it does mean we can't pass laws that give special recognition to Methodists over Presbyterians. We can't levy a ten percent tithe from each citizen to go directly into the coffers of the Mennonites. We will not allow a priest, bishop, or minister to sit beside the President, Governor, Mayor, or other elected official to tell him (or her) what the church demands be done on a given topic.
If you object to a prayer being said before a football game, tune it out and say your own prayer by yourself. If you don't like the ten commandments monument on the courthouse lawn, petition to post the principles of your own religion in the town square. I think that anytime somebody doesn't like somebody else's free speech, the answer isn't to try to silence them, but to speak out with one's own free speech.
We now have a government that is violating that most sacred of constitutional rights by telling citizens we no longer have the right to our own conscience. Despite the fact that millions of Catholics feel strongly that contraceptive and abortifacient drugs are a chemical form of infanticide, Obamacare now forces them to pay for those drugs to provide them for free to anyone who wants them. That's a clear first amendment violation.
Gay Marriage is becoming the law of the land. The Supreme Court begged homosexual activists to bring another case asking to impose it as a brand new institution for all of America so they could dictate its implementation nationwide. This too is a violation of first amendment rights.
The imposition of homosexual marriage "rights" is already leading to oppression of people of faith who refuse to participate. In those states that have already legalized homosexual marriage, businesspersons are being sued for discrimination for turning away business from same-sex couples planning weddings. Soon the clergy will be sued, and I believe the day is fast approaching when priests and pastors will be jailed for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals.
Atheist educators everywhere can be found extolling their goal of purging all religion from society by teaching our children that there is no God. They've been engaged in that crusade since at least the 70's, and have all but succeeded. God has turned his back on the United States, and we are beginning to experience the inevitable suffering that comes once God has abandoned a people.
If I made the rules, faith would be encouraged across the land. While I would not allow any particular sect to gain control and pass laws for their own benefit, I would make sure all people of faith have the ability to express their faith wherever and whenever they wish.
What about Muslims and wierd religions, you might ask? Muslims should enjoy exactly the same freedom of religious expression as anyone. As long as they aren't sending their followers out to blow up buildings and kill other citizens, something that would not be tolerated. And Muslims may not convert anyone to their faith by force, no matter what the Prophet said.
Even religions I do not appreciate, like pagans and witches and even those misguided few who worship Satan, have the right to practice their religion. But again, if the practice of their religion includes murdering of others or animal sacrifice or other destructive behavior, they will be prosecuted. Not prosecuted for their faith, but for their antisocial behaviors.
I've found that the atheists who scream loudest about tolerance seem to be the most intolerant. They tend to be easily offended by anyone who even mildly mentions God in their presence. Especially anyone who might attempt to proselytize in their presence gets especially vilified. When will they realize that Christianity is a religion based on a personal conversion to the faith, and each individual has the right to choose to join or stay away?
Perhaps the atheist's desire to eliminate Christians overcomes any inclination to understand them.
Europeans flocked to America when their small start-up Protestant sects were suppressed by the holy mother Catholic church. In an unfortunate and dark period of history, the bishops often wielded more power than the elected officials across the former Roman empire. That meant they became corrupt, driving a priest named Martin Luther to rebel.
As the corrupt bishops felt their power slipping through their fingers with the popularity of Lutheranism, lots of other protesting folks broke away to found their own churches independent of Rome. My own ancestry research uncovered the suggestion that my Great times 8 Grandfather Johan may have emigrated from Alsace, France to New York City in 1709 to escape the Church's persecution. Family members were jailed and their property confiscated because they had committed the mortal sin of abandoning the Holy Catholic Church to join a start-up Protestant Anabaptist Church.
What liberals did years ago was dig up an old letter penned by Thomas Jefferson, from which they grabbed an out-of-context phrase "wall of separation between church and state". They trumpeted that phrase and dishonestly claimed it meant that there can be no expression of faith in any public forum. So bible lessons and prayer were outlawed from the schools. Attempts continue to be made frequently to outlaw prayer from city council meetings, eliminate the ten commandments from courtrooms and courthouse lawns, and silence those who might dare to pray before school sporting events or at commencement ceremonies.
What most Americans do not know today is that the original intent of the First Amendment, supported fully by Jefferson himself despite the misused phrase from his letter, was to eliminate the direct interference of religious organizations with governing. It doesn't mean we can't pray in public or at public gatherings, but it does mean we can't pass laws that give special recognition to Methodists over Presbyterians. We can't levy a ten percent tithe from each citizen to go directly into the coffers of the Mennonites. We will not allow a priest, bishop, or minister to sit beside the President, Governor, Mayor, or other elected official to tell him (or her) what the church demands be done on a given topic.
If you object to a prayer being said before a football game, tune it out and say your own prayer by yourself. If you don't like the ten commandments monument on the courthouse lawn, petition to post the principles of your own religion in the town square. I think that anytime somebody doesn't like somebody else's free speech, the answer isn't to try to silence them, but to speak out with one's own free speech.
We now have a government that is violating that most sacred of constitutional rights by telling citizens we no longer have the right to our own conscience. Despite the fact that millions of Catholics feel strongly that contraceptive and abortifacient drugs are a chemical form of infanticide, Obamacare now forces them to pay for those drugs to provide them for free to anyone who wants them. That's a clear first amendment violation.
Gay Marriage is becoming the law of the land. The Supreme Court begged homosexual activists to bring another case asking to impose it as a brand new institution for all of America so they could dictate its implementation nationwide. This too is a violation of first amendment rights.
The imposition of homosexual marriage "rights" is already leading to oppression of people of faith who refuse to participate. In those states that have already legalized homosexual marriage, businesspersons are being sued for discrimination for turning away business from same-sex couples planning weddings. Soon the clergy will be sued, and I believe the day is fast approaching when priests and pastors will be jailed for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals.
Atheist educators everywhere can be found extolling their goal of purging all religion from society by teaching our children that there is no God. They've been engaged in that crusade since at least the 70's, and have all but succeeded. God has turned his back on the United States, and we are beginning to experience the inevitable suffering that comes once God has abandoned a people.
If I made the rules, faith would be encouraged across the land. While I would not allow any particular sect to gain control and pass laws for their own benefit, I would make sure all people of faith have the ability to express their faith wherever and whenever they wish.
What about Muslims and wierd religions, you might ask? Muslims should enjoy exactly the same freedom of religious expression as anyone. As long as they aren't sending their followers out to blow up buildings and kill other citizens, something that would not be tolerated. And Muslims may not convert anyone to their faith by force, no matter what the Prophet said.
Even religions I do not appreciate, like pagans and witches and even those misguided few who worship Satan, have the right to practice their religion. But again, if the practice of their religion includes murdering of others or animal sacrifice or other destructive behavior, they will be prosecuted. Not prosecuted for their faith, but for their antisocial behaviors.
I've found that the atheists who scream loudest about tolerance seem to be the most intolerant. They tend to be easily offended by anyone who even mildly mentions God in their presence. Especially anyone who might attempt to proselytize in their presence gets especially vilified. When will they realize that Christianity is a religion based on a personal conversion to the faith, and each individual has the right to choose to join or stay away?
Perhaps the atheist's desire to eliminate Christians overcomes any inclination to understand them.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 4: Foreign Policy
The most successful foreign policy I've ever seen came from Ronald Reagan. Simple and concise. "Peace through Strength". "Trust by Verify". Teddy Roosevelt's famous old line, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".
Those form the roots of the foreign policy I would support. The next President should give a speech to the world and say something like this:
"The United States of America desires your friendship. We have much to offer as an example to any country that desires to achieve the same level of freedom and prosperity that our citizens enjoy. Extend your hand to us in friendship, and you will find us the best friend you could ever hope for."
"But if you choose to be our enemy, we'll be your worst nightmare. If you choose to be America's enemy, we probably won't take military action against you unless you foolishly choose to attack us. But we will cease to trade with you and we will wield our considerable influence to see that other countries also stop visiting your ports. Abuse your own people and we'll support citizens who choose to fight for democracy in your country. Attack any of America's interests and we'll destroy you."
We need to stop propping up petty dictators and funding jihadist revolutionaries. We need to re-establish our unflagging friendship with countries like Israel and England, and seek similarly close friendships with as many other countries as possible.
We must value free AND fair trade. We must no longer be afraid to sanction China for abusing our trading relationship by stealing American technology and dumping Chinese products on the American market in order to drive out competition. We need to seek balance between imports and exports with every country in which we trade.
We must change our system of immigration to something that appropriately values and protects American jobs while still offering opportunity to talented foreign workers. It is time to stop allowing American companies to favor foreign high-tech and professional workers over our own homegrown talent.
Our military might must never become weaker than anyone else in the world. Like it or not, peace does come through strength, and we must recover that reputation we lost with the Obama administration in which rogue dictators exploit our weakness and indecisiveness.
Those form the roots of the foreign policy I would support. The next President should give a speech to the world and say something like this:
"The United States of America desires your friendship. We have much to offer as an example to any country that desires to achieve the same level of freedom and prosperity that our citizens enjoy. Extend your hand to us in friendship, and you will find us the best friend you could ever hope for."
"But if you choose to be our enemy, we'll be your worst nightmare. If you choose to be America's enemy, we probably won't take military action against you unless you foolishly choose to attack us. But we will cease to trade with you and we will wield our considerable influence to see that other countries also stop visiting your ports. Abuse your own people and we'll support citizens who choose to fight for democracy in your country. Attack any of America's interests and we'll destroy you."
We need to stop propping up petty dictators and funding jihadist revolutionaries. We need to re-establish our unflagging friendship with countries like Israel and England, and seek similarly close friendships with as many other countries as possible.
We must value free AND fair trade. We must no longer be afraid to sanction China for abusing our trading relationship by stealing American technology and dumping Chinese products on the American market in order to drive out competition. We need to seek balance between imports and exports with every country in which we trade.
We must change our system of immigration to something that appropriately values and protects American jobs while still offering opportunity to talented foreign workers. It is time to stop allowing American companies to favor foreign high-tech and professional workers over our own homegrown talent.
Our military might must never become weaker than anyone else in the world. Like it or not, peace does come through strength, and we must recover that reputation we lost with the Obama administration in which rogue dictators exploit our weakness and indecisiveness.
Monday, August 12, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 3: Taxes
The argument about taxes is nearly always about "fair share". Mostly Democrats insisting that the rich are getting a free pass, and not paying their "fair share".
I don't hear enough of the question, "fair share of what?".
My proposal is that arguing about fair share is putting the cart before the horse. The first discussion needs to be about the proper role of government, including Federal, State, and Local. Hate to break it to you folks, but the Constitution already settled that question; the problem is, the Federal government hasn't applied the constitution to tax policy since before Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president.
So let's start there. It might require a number of years to get there, but it's way past time to begin rolling back all of those unconstitutional agencies now operating in Washington, DC. Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Endowment for the Arts, Department of Energy, and so on. Just phase them out over time.
To the extent the people decide they need and want a government-run organization to serve some purpose, let them petition their State Legislature. Agriculture, for example, can be much better managed at the state level, which would allow each state's organization to fit its programs with the needs of their own farmers. Education has always been and should return to a locally administered program. The federal government simply is the wrong place for most of these agencies to build their massive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracies.
Then I'd go with a simple flat tax. Once our Federal Government is returned to only those activities allowed it by the constitution, figure out the annual budget and divide by the annual GDP to get the tax rate. OK, if we must, we can extend an exemption from income tax at a floor of, say, $20K. But I would prefer to throw away the graduated tax rates that are designed to soak the rich.
You know, I'd even be willing to compromise on the progressive tax system as long as the Left reciprocates by agreeing to transition the federal government back to only its constitutionally authorized activities. But the top rate can't ever exceed 1/3 of any individual's earnings.
I've looked at the "Fair Tax", which is a tempting alternative. It's basically a national sales tax. But I can't figure out how they enforce it without turning the government into an uber-intrusive tax collector prying into all of our private transactions. So I'm more of a flat tax guy.
The current tax code is the first bit of evidence presented on behalf of the prosecution that the federal government is hopelessly corrupt. The tax code is thousands of pages containing tax exemptions and credits and deductions targeted at specific individuals and corporations in return for their continued financial backing of the congressperson who anonymously wrote the exception into the unwieldy code. If we achieve nothing else, slicing all of that graft out of the tax code would be a tremendous accomplishment.
Wouldn't it be terrific if every one of us filed our annual tax return on a postcard? Here's how much I made this year, and here's how much tax I paid in. Here's my calculated 15 or 20 percent (whatever the rate ends up to be), and I am sending a check for the difference. Or the government owes me a refund of my overpayment. Done.
Perhaps the most important part of my proposed solution needs to be mentioned here. If necessary, use a Constitutional Amendment that says something like this:
No tax assessment, credit, reduction, or any other type of adjustment can be applied to any individual or organization without it being applied or available to all individuals or organizations. The effect of this constitutional requirement would be that congress would be specifically precluded from giving tax breaks to their friends and supporters. Likewise it would stop legislators from levying punishing taxes on individuals or industries (i.e. Oil Companies) they don't like.
I could see this leveling the playing field in all aspects of tax preferences that occur around the country. State and local governments would no longer be allowed to bribe companies to locate into their area with tax abatements. Professional sports teams will no longer be able to extort money and expensive stadium projects from their host cities with the threat they may move the team to a more generous city.
The fundamental policy is simply this: Everybody pays the same rate, everybody is subject to the same laws, and nobody can get preferential treatment nor be punished for belonging to an industry that's out of favor with the party in power.
I don't hear enough of the question, "fair share of what?".
My proposal is that arguing about fair share is putting the cart before the horse. The first discussion needs to be about the proper role of government, including Federal, State, and Local. Hate to break it to you folks, but the Constitution already settled that question; the problem is, the Federal government hasn't applied the constitution to tax policy since before Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president.
So let's start there. It might require a number of years to get there, but it's way past time to begin rolling back all of those unconstitutional agencies now operating in Washington, DC. Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Endowment for the Arts, Department of Energy, and so on. Just phase them out over time.
To the extent the people decide they need and want a government-run organization to serve some purpose, let them petition their State Legislature. Agriculture, for example, can be much better managed at the state level, which would allow each state's organization to fit its programs with the needs of their own farmers. Education has always been and should return to a locally administered program. The federal government simply is the wrong place for most of these agencies to build their massive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracies.
Then I'd go with a simple flat tax. Once our Federal Government is returned to only those activities allowed it by the constitution, figure out the annual budget and divide by the annual GDP to get the tax rate. OK, if we must, we can extend an exemption from income tax at a floor of, say, $20K. But I would prefer to throw away the graduated tax rates that are designed to soak the rich.
You know, I'd even be willing to compromise on the progressive tax system as long as the Left reciprocates by agreeing to transition the federal government back to only its constitutionally authorized activities. But the top rate can't ever exceed 1/3 of any individual's earnings.
I've looked at the "Fair Tax", which is a tempting alternative. It's basically a national sales tax. But I can't figure out how they enforce it without turning the government into an uber-intrusive tax collector prying into all of our private transactions. So I'm more of a flat tax guy.
The current tax code is the first bit of evidence presented on behalf of the prosecution that the federal government is hopelessly corrupt. The tax code is thousands of pages containing tax exemptions and credits and deductions targeted at specific individuals and corporations in return for their continued financial backing of the congressperson who anonymously wrote the exception into the unwieldy code. If we achieve nothing else, slicing all of that graft out of the tax code would be a tremendous accomplishment.
Wouldn't it be terrific if every one of us filed our annual tax return on a postcard? Here's how much I made this year, and here's how much tax I paid in. Here's my calculated 15 or 20 percent (whatever the rate ends up to be), and I am sending a check for the difference. Or the government owes me a refund of my overpayment. Done.
Perhaps the most important part of my proposed solution needs to be mentioned here. If necessary, use a Constitutional Amendment that says something like this:
No tax assessment, credit, reduction, or any other type of adjustment can be applied to any individual or organization without it being applied or available to all individuals or organizations. The effect of this constitutional requirement would be that congress would be specifically precluded from giving tax breaks to their friends and supporters. Likewise it would stop legislators from levying punishing taxes on individuals or industries (i.e. Oil Companies) they don't like.
I could see this leveling the playing field in all aspects of tax preferences that occur around the country. State and local governments would no longer be allowed to bribe companies to locate into their area with tax abatements. Professional sports teams will no longer be able to extort money and expensive stadium projects from their host cities with the threat they may move the team to a more generous city.
The fundamental policy is simply this: Everybody pays the same rate, everybody is subject to the same laws, and nobody can get preferential treatment nor be punished for belonging to an industry that's out of favor with the party in power.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
If I Made the Rules - Part 2: Immigration
One of the most frustrating aspects of congressional corruption is seen in the multiple attempts they've made to contravene American sovereignty by failing to enforce immigration laws, then forcing through legislation that grants amnesty to millions of foreigners who break those laws. The unholy alliance between Democrats who see illegal immigrants as a permanent underclass beholden to Democrat politicians and Corporate interests who see illegal immigrants as a prime source of cheap labor. Meanwhile neither has the best interests of average Americans, nor the illegal immigrants themselves, at heart.
I've posted my proposal to solve the problem of illegal immigrants before in this blog. The solution is actually very simple, but only if and when politicians become willing to put aside their petty desires for power and wealth to find a truly just solution.
My solution remains the same.
First, get truly serious about protecting the border. Rather than arguing about fences, my proposal is to beef up the Border Patrol to a level that permits them to actually be effective. Give them the tools and resources they need to finally stem the flow of economic refugees streaming across the border. Supplement them with State and Local Law Enforcement, to not only assist with capturing illegal border crossing, but also detain those illegals found in the normal course of police business. Stop the unilateral policies of Obama that declared that all captured illegal immigrants be released unless they have a criminal record.
Second, enforce severe sanctions against employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Simply make e-verify required rather than optional. Whenever the government receives a W2 they cannot match to a legal citizen, they simply contact the employer that generated that W2 and ask them to confirm or correct the record, in case there was a mistake. Fines should be significant, perhaps double the annual earnings of each illegal immigrant employed for the second offense, with possible jail time for company officials if they continue to get caught breaking the law.
Third, the "path to citizenship". I recognize there has to be some process created for the current millions of illegals in the country. My proposal is to contract with Employment Agencies who work closely with a group of immigration judges to go through the paperwork of everyone here illegally that wants to stay and receive a temporary work permit. The Employment Agencies work with the employers to confirm the first requirement for granting a work permit to an illegal - an employer that has agreed to employ that individual (or probably already has done so - this process must occur during a 1 year grace period in place before the full force of the employer enforcement)
The other requirements for illegals to receive a temporary work permit are as follows:
Demonstrate a baseline proficiency in spoken and written English
Have no criminal record beyond being in the country illegally
Or if those two criteria are not met, they may also be admitted if they can demonstrate they have sufficient personal wealth that they can guarantee they will not try to access welfare or food stamps or any other form of public assistance beyond those provided to citizens upon retirement (Social Security and Medicare)
Finally, those employment agencies will work closely with ICE to help supply labor to American companies. They will first seek to fill company openings with American citizens. Only when they cannot fill the openings will they seek a foreign worker, interview and test the foreign applicants, then serve as the conduit to issue the work permits from ICE and help place the foreign workers with their employers.
If cmopanies are telling the truth about needing good employees and being unable to find them among American citizens, this approach will help prove or disprove that claim. It also will give preference to qualified foreign applicants, rather than the current reality that lets illegals who sneaked across the border grab the available jobs without more qualified applicants getting a fair shot.
It's very simple and cost-effective, as well as fair to everyone. Why have we never heard a single politician propose anything like this? I think its because a politician will gain nothing from this solution. I've come to believe they won't do anything unless there's something in it for them.
I've posted my proposal to solve the problem of illegal immigrants before in this blog. The solution is actually very simple, but only if and when politicians become willing to put aside their petty desires for power and wealth to find a truly just solution.
My solution remains the same.
First, get truly serious about protecting the border. Rather than arguing about fences, my proposal is to beef up the Border Patrol to a level that permits them to actually be effective. Give them the tools and resources they need to finally stem the flow of economic refugees streaming across the border. Supplement them with State and Local Law Enforcement, to not only assist with capturing illegal border crossing, but also detain those illegals found in the normal course of police business. Stop the unilateral policies of Obama that declared that all captured illegal immigrants be released unless they have a criminal record.
Second, enforce severe sanctions against employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Simply make e-verify required rather than optional. Whenever the government receives a W2 they cannot match to a legal citizen, they simply contact the employer that generated that W2 and ask them to confirm or correct the record, in case there was a mistake. Fines should be significant, perhaps double the annual earnings of each illegal immigrant employed for the second offense, with possible jail time for company officials if they continue to get caught breaking the law.
Third, the "path to citizenship". I recognize there has to be some process created for the current millions of illegals in the country. My proposal is to contract with Employment Agencies who work closely with a group of immigration judges to go through the paperwork of everyone here illegally that wants to stay and receive a temporary work permit. The Employment Agencies work with the employers to confirm the first requirement for granting a work permit to an illegal - an employer that has agreed to employ that individual (or probably already has done so - this process must occur during a 1 year grace period in place before the full force of the employer enforcement)
The other requirements for illegals to receive a temporary work permit are as follows:
Demonstrate a baseline proficiency in spoken and written English
Have no criminal record beyond being in the country illegally
Or if those two criteria are not met, they may also be admitted if they can demonstrate they have sufficient personal wealth that they can guarantee they will not try to access welfare or food stamps or any other form of public assistance beyond those provided to citizens upon retirement (Social Security and Medicare)
Finally, those employment agencies will work closely with ICE to help supply labor to American companies. They will first seek to fill company openings with American citizens. Only when they cannot fill the openings will they seek a foreign worker, interview and test the foreign applicants, then serve as the conduit to issue the work permits from ICE and help place the foreign workers with their employers.
If cmopanies are telling the truth about needing good employees and being unable to find them among American citizens, this approach will help prove or disprove that claim. It also will give preference to qualified foreign applicants, rather than the current reality that lets illegals who sneaked across the border grab the available jobs without more qualified applicants getting a fair shot.
It's very simple and cost-effective, as well as fair to everyone. Why have we never heard a single politician propose anything like this? I think its because a politician will gain nothing from this solution. I've come to believe they won't do anything unless there's something in it for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)