Issue 22 Sequester "BS" feb, 27,2013

Some of you have probably heard the word "sequester" on the news recently. For those who don't know, they are talking about the automatic spending cuts that are part of the deal made by members of Congress and the President (apparently his idea) to get America's spending under control. But now that we are just a day away from the cuts kicking in I thought it appropriate for me to put my two cents in. I say let the cuts happen, as spending is not being decreased in the first place.

The 85 billion being cut is from the budget the Federal government wants. However, even with those "cuts" we are still spending approximately 25 billion more dollars than last year. Some of you are saying "how the hell is that a cut?" Well, to the government, or any other governmental entity like State governments, Public School budgets, and the like, that is considered a cut in spending.

It is a myth that police and fire fighters will loose their jobs if the cuts go through. Mainly because the police and fire departments are not funded by the Federal government. Criminals going free, parks shutting down, every bad thing they are saying will not happen at all. This is because, just like when the government has made previous cuts, the fear mongers went into over drive because they want that extra money. Money that is used to garner political favoritism, and lobby members of Congress. What, you thought it was just corporations who lobby Congress, think again. The people who lobby Congress the most is actually our own government agencies, as they have to constantly try to make their efforts look more valuable than they really are to justify their continued existence. These same threats happened under the Reagan administration when he wanted cuts, and you know what did him in? The national parks service threatened that the Washington monument would be shut down. It was a load of BS but it worked.

Truth is there are no real cuts that are going to take place. At least the cuts that matter like eliminating redundancy, and failing/non- successful programs. Instead we get political games. The President blames the Republicans, and the Republicans counter that it was the Presidents idea in the first place. Notice the careful way the Republicans are saying it "was the Presidents idea" and that they use video of him saying his favoritism of the idea. Truth is, Republicans, and Democrats in Congress voted for it, and the President signed it, so God forbid anything bad actually does result from the cuts (less than 1% chance from a historical stand point) everyone is to blame.

So all in all, let the cuts happen. Let them "reduce" spending just a little bit more. It will not hurt us, just a minor set back to some politicians political careers.

 

Issue 21 Hyphenated Americans feb,26,2013

Did you know that President Theodore Roosevelt aka "Teddy" despised the idea of a hyphenated American? So strongly was he disgusted with the idea of Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Mexican-Americans and African-Americans, that he felt that they should be deported? Even today, there are some people who despise this notion of being a hyphenated anything. They want Americans to be just that "Americans." They want Italians as Italians, Irish as Irish, because they feel that to be hyphenated in such a way that they are disloyal to the country. Put in a better way, they feel that a hyphenated American has two allegiances, one to America and the other to what ever they hyphenate themselves with and feel that those people are ungrateful to America for all the benefits they have.

This is not to say that those people who feel that way are correct. I believe that a hyphenated American is just embracing a part of their heritage in such a way that it separates them from the main part of American culture. In other words, it is a way to achieve an identity and also embrace the culture of your heritage. In fact I believe that a person embracing their historical traditions will enhance the American culture by giving the populace a glimpse of other ways of living and embracing life. Those ideas that rise to the top will become part of the mainstream culture that makes up America.

Like I said, to be Irish-American, African-American, etc, is to form an identity and is a life style that should be embraced. It is not for others to judge you on how you identify yourself. People who worship different faiths also go through something similar. They embrace a part of the religious culture of society and thus define themselves as Catholic, Mormon, Sunni Muslim, or Jewish. And even then, they may embrace aspects of their faith that agree with them.

The problem I have however is those with dual citizenship. This is where I begin to question loyalty to America, or any country for that matter. It also, to me seems kind of cheap to be a citizen of two or more countries so that you can embrace the benefits of both without having to contribute to both countries benefits, IE social security. You live here in the U.S. while amassing a fortune, and contributing to Social Security and the like, but then say move to Italy and get the free benefits there without putting up a dime. It's not fair. If the two countries you have citizenship with go to war, who do you side with? With hyphenated Americans, we don't have that problem for as soon as a conflict occurs with their home country and their hyphenated counterpart, loyalty almost always switches to the home country so long as the home country is not the aggressor.

So I say let there be hyphenated Americans. They contribute to society in many ways, through cultural crossovers, opens up new sources of commerce and most of all it allows people to feel like they belong somewhere as part of a group in a society that is built on individuality and Independence. I don't think we should be focusing on what they hyphenate themselves with, but remember, they stick American at the end of that hyphen.

 

Issue 20 Computer Revolution Feb,25,2013

Computers. We live in a day and age where we are no longer able to comprehend doing any task without them. They make it easy to find information, communicate with people around the globe and of course share our own information and data with those of our choosing. However, this technology has not remained static. We now have social media devices like Face Book and Twitter, and thus our demand and need for greater band with has increased.

For those who don't know, bandwidth is essentially the information highway for a computer with the speed at which that data is received, processed, and redistributed all being determined by how much bandwidth is allocated. We have, for the most part solved this problem by both compressing data and creating cloud servers to make it easier to access information while still keeping and continually shrinking our personal computers and cell phones. Still the demand for processing power goes on. Thus scientists have found a way to make fiber optic cables that can literally twist light so as to carry more data. Lasers are being experimented with as different varieties and spectrum's of lasers can surpass the traditional light spectrum when transmitting data. In addition, some computers are getting an upgrade, for as technology progresses, the expense and size of a server has shrunk, and will soon turn all home computers into their own independent servers which will expand processing power.

Wi-Fi is also going to have its own revolution. With television broadcasts and radios being transmitted as a digital signal (it allows for more TV channels, can't explain it any better than that) it frees up the traditional radio frequency bands that were used to transmit TV and radio signals. So powerful are these signals that in some cases a company can provide free wi-fi to a city or even and entire country.

Another, revolution is coming in the form of the wearable computer. Jackets with fiber optic cables woven in allow for phones, radios, speakers, and even life monitoring devices to be built into clothing. Even the new paper thin computer technology may be integrated as a TV or computer monitor may be built using plastics that change color due to the electricity flowing through it. Now there are also glasses that have built in computers in them which both Google and Apple are working on. Of course, their main challenge is not the functionality of such devices; it's the marketability for these things have to look fashionable to the wearer.

Soon, we will have implants and even wearable devices that will allow us to use computers to interact with both our natural environment and also the virtual world (yes, these are being experimented with, but primarily for the use by disabled people).

Finally, the mouse, the little device that allows us to click the icons on our screens will probably disappear. With touch screens and now facial recognition technology we can either press on the screen ourselves, or a computer program will recognize from how we are looking at the object if we want an icon or an app pressed. Even old school keyboards may be wiped away as laser projectors will be able to project a keyboard onto any flat surface for our personal use, assuming a device that monitors brain waves that can tell what we want written is not produced first. Heck why bother with a monitor when you can just wear the Google glasses and see what you want on an eye glass while eliminating that bulk from your home office.

Computer technology is only still in its infancy. Nothing can stop this computer revolution and innovation, not to mention the fact that with 3D printers, we ourselves will be able to produce our own unique designs. Lets just say this is a fun period in history to be living in, here's to the first BIO computer (modeled on the human brain and how it processes and stores data) coming maybe in the next decade or so ;)

 

Issue 19 Restrain it One More Time! feb,24,2013

Final one, and have fun. :)

   Restrain it One More Time!

            We all want a sound fiscally responsible government, so here I list some ideas for solutions to set the government right.  Let’s deal with the national debt first.  Debt for a government can mean the difference between a government surplus with low taxes and a government with large deficits, higher taxes and painful cuts to programs that some people rely on like our seniors.  So how do we reform to take on the debt?  First you create a strict limit on how much debt a government can take on.  This limit can be based on government revenue, surpluses with both in combination with how much interest the debt will accumulate.  Or you can have a sinking fund which pays off the debt itself through its own source of revenue and can be used to limit debt to the amount of money collected in the fund (it does not include the interest on the debt incurred for that year).

            Another limitation on the debt is deciding under what circumstances a government may borrow money.  Under no circumstance should a government be funding its activities by the accumulation of more debt.  Nor should a government’s deficit spending be carried over until the next fiscal year at least that is if you want a balanced budget and prevent the further need to borrow more money.  So I say limit debt to only the most essential things such as to finance infrastructure or in the federal governments case the military in war time (as it is unforeseen spending).  Of course, if money is borrowed to finance a war it should be limited to only when Congress has declared war.

            The final way to limit debt is to create a supermajority vote to issue bonds of any kind (a.k.a. debt).  I think a 2/3 majority vote would be best. Add onto this the ability of a tax payer to sue in court to challenge any form of illegal debt issuance and the United States will both borrow and lend less.  This in fact will make the taxpayers of America the official watchdogs to insure our government does not go out of control with debt.

            Then there is another issue, taxes.  Excessive taxation can be just as bad as burdensome debt.  One idea to prevent burdensome taxes is a supermajority vote to increase taxes or to create new taxes.  This will make it almost impossible to level new taxes on the public unless such an increase becomes an absolute necessity.  Another option is to limit the types of taxation.  The three major types are property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes.  In general, only two forms of taxation should exist at any given time so as to prevent tax burdens from becoming too large.  Property taxes are probably the fairest because only rich people can own million dollar homes.  It can be based on the square footage of living space or the total amount of square footage of your whole property.  A sales tax is also fairly fair, i.e. it only taxes you on what you buy.  The Fair Tax, Vat tax and the like are all forms of sales tax.  If done in the right way (no picking of winners and losers) it can produce and promote economic prosperity.  Income taxes can also come in many forms as well and is typically the least fair.  It encourages unequal treatment of the rich and poor and when taxing business income spawns lobbyists for rich companies to get tax breaks and leave less financially stable small businesses to be slowly stamped out.  Even though I do not like taxes in general as it is legal theft of ones property or taxing something that rightfully belongs to you, I will take any tax, and I mean any, that rids us of the income tax and all other types of taxes that breed lobbyists and harm small businesses.

            The final piece of a sound government is a balanced budget, but who’s going to make it?  It’s probably best if the legislative branch of government makes it and then the President or Governor as the case may be cuts out the pork with both the Line Item and Line Reduction Veto’s.  At all times however, the budget must account for all funds, whether it is taxes, debt, and future costs of current programs.  Spending itself can be limited via caps on the federal, state or even local government’s budgets, but these must be designed carefully or it will become detrimental.  It might be best to limit what percentage of the total revenue can be spent on what like 15% for infrastructure, 20% for research and development etc., but again it must be designed carefully.

            There are lots of things we can do to fix government and make it fiscally sound.  Also you must remember a government that borrows is no longer 100% loyal to its citizens for its loyalty is now divided between its creditor and you.  No government should have divided loyalties to its people.  Let us together make government responsible only to us, the citizens of America, once again.      

Issue 18 Restrain it Some More!! feb,23,2011

Part 2 of this series is here...it's the Texan inspired way to restrain the government. :)

Restrain it Some More!!

            So we want term limits, but did you know that there is another way to limit excessive spending, and lobbyist money corrupting our government.  The way to do it is to limit how often and at what times the United States Congress can meet.  I got this idea from Texas and its legislature which meets for up to 120 days every two years.  So I say lets limit Congress to meeting for 90 days once a year.  You’re thinking that ridiculous right.  Well in 2011 Congress only met for 155 days and still passed numerous legislation as Congress attempted to be a part time Congress under House Speaker John Boehner’s leadership.  The 90 period is thus more than adequate to pass all essential legislation, and limiting arbitrary legislation due to time constraints.  We must remember, thousands of pieces of legislation are introduced to Congress each day it is in session and even if Congress met every day of the year it does not mean that that piece of legislation will ever come to a vote and will then sit on the back burner while more important issues are addressed first.  This means much of the legislation that supports corporate welfare and spends American tax dollars arbitrarily may not come to vote as often.  It makes you wonder, how many pieces of good legislation were put off to support corruption which harms the economy, competition and increases our national debt.

            Other advantages to this idea are that it forces Congress to go home to its constituents.  This is obviously a good thing as it keeps the members of Congress from losing perspective on the needs of those they represent.  It also reduces the need for the excessive amount of Congressional staffers as they would be working mostly during the 90 day period leaving only basic personnel to man the more important offices.  

            The only possible problem is a state of emergency.  While treaties can wait until the next legislative session, a state of emergency cannot.  I say if we are attacked like on 9/11 the President can call forth Congress to vote on a military issue and aid the affected areas only.  But even then, I would think Congress would have already prepared a contingency plan and the President can already repel an enemy attack here at home thanks to the Constitution.  Natural disasters should be handled by National Guard troops, emergency service personnel and a reserve fund at the Presidents disposal to provide monetary support to the affected areas.  The only time I believe that the Congress can meet outside of the 90 period is if a State government makes a direct overture for aid from the Federal Government after that State has declared a state of emergency.  Congress would be limited to financial relief and the President can call forth the National Guard from other States to help out.  After voting, Congress will then retire until the next scheduled session or is called due to another emergency.  It may be prudent to limit how long Congress can meet due to a state of emergency as we do not want them voting beyond what is called for in that emergency situation.  I would limit them to 10 day sessions with a 2/3 majority vote to extend it by an additional 10 days, with them voting to extend it on the 10^th day exclusively to prevent them extending the 10 day period until the next legislative session.  Also, any law passed that did not relate to the state of emergency will be rendered null and void even if signed by the President thus preventing further abuse of the emergency session by Congress.

            This is just an idea.  It does not guarantee any form of success, but it may be worth a try as our government is consumed with people trying to justify the continuation of their life as an elected official.  Voting today is no guarantee of shoving out a bad politician as they bribe the electorate with pork barrel spending.  Term limits and limiting how long a Congressional session lasts is but two short term solutions which hinder the foolishness and the political horse trading that goes on in Washington.           

look foward to the next and final installment of this series :)

Issue 17 Restrain it!!! feb,22,2013

Here is the first of 3 essays on restraining the government, while not an entirely new idea for this first one, it is sure to get you in the mood for the next two in this series.

 

Restrain it!

            Let’s face it, our founding fathers had no idea how big the Federal Government would get.  But how big is too big?  Well, I think too big is when you spend American tax payer dollars on individual businesses who can afford to pay for themselves, paying for roads  for fiscally irresponsible State governments and having to bribe each other with pork barrel spending just to get essential laws passed.  Are you upset my dear reader, because I am?  These actions by politicians are what I call legalized corruption.  It’s a series of accepted practices done by the government that in many cases are against the law for private businesses or individuals to do.  So what are we going to do about it?

            Well I have an idea, an idea everyone has on there mind.  That idea is term limits.  Originally, in writing the Constitution the founders did not include term limits for any elected official under the belief that experience in office was essential to being a good representative.  Obviously it’s not, for after awhile representatives become tainted by lobbyists and Washington D.C.’s dubious policy making processes.  So I suggest 2 two year terms for members of the House of Representatives.  I give them two terms because that leaves them with only a limited time to address the most pressing issues and not ones that cater to lobbyists.  The Senate I would also limit to 2 six year terms.  Keeping the six years in office is essential for Senators need more time and experience in office for they have to confirm presidential appointments and treaties with other nations, both of which the House of Representatives has no say in.  Originally, State representatives selected Senators to go to Washington, an indirect representative of the people in this instance, and had the ability to recall there Senators for any violations the State governments created.  This kept Senators in line and prevented much of the havoc we have today.  If we want to skip limiting Senators terms of office then we can just repeal the 17^th Amendment and we will never have to bother with the false promises of a Senatorial election ever again.

            The benefits to term limits are that it hurts lobbyists.  They don’t want to have to lobby a new representative every few years, they want their political pet.  Other advantages are we get fresh new faces into office with fresh ideas and will power without the chains of the old system.  However, there is a disadvantage.  In a representative’s final term of office, they are no longer beholden to their constituents on account of that they are no longer worried about re-election.  So there is no actual accountability, aside from their conscience, the impeachment process and other politicians who vote the other way.  This problem can be mitigated by just removing the 17^th Amendment to make Senators accountable to their States and people respectively.  Remember, the only role Governors play in the Senatorial process, both past and present, is to appoint a Senator if there is a vacancy otherwise the State legislators, our representatives at the State level have full control over the process.  They can even replace or accept the State Governors appointee if they wished.  This also has the advantage of ending unfunded mandates imposed by the Federal Government on the States.  A possible problem with this is that it may cause lobbyists to begin lobbying State governments more, but that can be solved by term limits at the State level.

            Another solution is that instead of 2 two year terms for the House of Representatives we could have 2 three year terms.  This would allow for a higher turn over rate in the house of representative with 1/3 being elected every year which would hinder rouge politicians who no longer fear the wrath of their constituents.  The only problem is that the lobbyists have one more year of use per term out of a representative, so it is moderately less effective than 2 two year terms.  Though combining it with the removal of the 17^th Amendment should mitigate this factor.

            It is a balancing act.  Too many terms or too long in office allows for corruption.  Too short a term or not enough time in office and the representative is less effective at doing their job.  Each reform must have a check and a balance built in to negate any negatives.  Just giving term limits to our elected officials is not enough to stop abuses of power.  That’s why I believe the 17^th Amendment must go so as to balance any term limits, however long they may be, that are imposed on the House of Representatives.  With this combination; we can prevent government corruption, save money on elections and the political games that go on behind the scenes, and bring down much of the black hole of arbitrary laws made by these politicians to keep themselves relevant.        

 

The next post in the series takes a different approach to reduce government stupidity. 

Issue 16 My random facts feb,21,2013

Well folks, this is my first of hopefully many random fact issues. Here I will present, well you probably guessed it, random facts....I hope you like it.

1. Did you know that the medication Vicoden (hydrocodone and similar medications) is going to become a narcotic on February 23? This means that if you wish to have a refill on this medication you will have to get a new prescription every single time from your doctor. Also, expect a longer wait if you get your medication from a busy pharmacy as only the pharmacist is allowed to touch the narcotics and count them. If you have anyone to blame for this inconvenience then blame those who abuse the medication.

2. Did you know that 100 people die from drug overdoses each day? Please be careful when taking your medication and take your medication at the same time each day to avoid such an unfortunate situation.

3. Bill O'reilly's new book is announced. It is called Killing Jesus; it follows his other two best sellers Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy. Look forward to a very interesting read.

4. For those who don't know..."Time, Day, and Year" is a human invention. Created originally to judge the best time to plant and harvest food, it has now become an important invention that governs our very lives. Think about it, how else you would be able to plan out your day.

And 5. Did you know the internet was originally created for the military? It was designed as a communication device in the event of a nuclear holocaust. Now though, as inventors and entrepreneurs have gotten their fingers on it, the internet has become a boom industry with no end in sight. We communicate, do financial transactions, shop, and look up information all on the internet. And through these basic functions have created massive industries and start ups that are slowly changing our world.

Hope you enjoyed my random facts issue...tomorrow will be a first in a series of 3 about restraining the government.