Doesn't Washington Have Better Things to Do?

If you haven't heard, Texas representative Joe Barton introduced legislation that passed a house subcommittee regarding a playoff system in college football rather than the current Bowl Series that he says is "unfair."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isQ1DkWtlreF6Tk2_clHtHAzH0SQD9CFSMVO0
Let me take a quick side note to point out that LIFE ISN'T ALWAYS FAIR!!! Or Perfect!!! If it were, term limits would have been included in the Constitution. Though I might also add it was designed with the freedom to elect whomever you want in spite of your own ignorance.

Now back to the point of legislation about college football. Really!! They can't leave football alone. Though I shouldn't be surprised with all the interrogations of athletes in recent years.
They can't leave any aspect of our lives alone!

Never mind whether or not you agree or disagree with the notion of playoff system in college football. The idea of the government meddling in sports is preposterous. And while I should be glad that it distracts them from various legislation that is costing us more and more money everyday, I'm furious that they act as if they have the right to interfere whenever and wherever they want in our live. I'm even more furious that we let them or perhaps many of us want them too interfere.

I also think legislation like this is a smoke screen for Americans so they can get distracted in their support or fury of it, from such decisions that we should be furiously working to stop. For example;
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091203-714257.html
There are billions of unused or paid back TARP funds. Which let me remind you the entire amount is debt to all of us. Rather than pay back the unused debt, the administration is considering using is to help aid the labor market. That is what the stimulus was supposed to do and rather than cut $700Billion in debt in half or close to it, they want to continue to spend that money. I know that makes sense to a lot of people who live their lives in debt, but let me remind you it's illogical, shameful, and immoral to send this country and its citizens into the debt they already have.

Optimal Method of Charity?

So the Christmas season is upon us and for many from thanksgiving through now is the only time of the year they are charitable since this seems to be the time of year that its ok to ask for donations to food banks and for donations to needy families that can't afford food much more a great Christmas. For others charitable giving is a year round habit and possibly increased around this time of the year.

This brings up an interesting point in the realm of politics, and I'm really curious to know what the general public thinks about this issue. Unfortunately this little blog doesn't get nearly the feed back to determine what the general public thinks. None-the-less, I'd like to know what those of you reading this think?

The government collects billions (or is it trillions now?) of tax dollars every year for programs that many likely view as charitable. Here's the problem. The government doesn't set up incentives to lower the cost of operations of various programs and supporting departments. They are given budgets, and if they don't spend it, they loose it the next year and have no hope of asking for a bigger budget either.

On the other hand one, must be ware of charities. Not all are as thrifty as they claim to be. Or they have overhead that's likely as heavy as the governments. Or they could be quasi-governmental in that they operate from government grants. Which adds a 2nd level of overhead to the money given to needy people. However if you research the charity, you'll find some great ones with relatively fixed and low overhead from year to year and the more money they collect, the more good they can do with it.

So I want to know, what's your preferred method of charity? To let the government handle it in spite of low efficiencies, or to do your research and find charities that give most if not all of their money towards the people, animals, or causes in need? I'm sure you can guess my preferred method.

Oh No!!!

Sorry about the title. It's my sarcastic way of adding to the hysteria over the Saturday night vote.

Let me tell you why the sarcasm. That vote was just to continue debating or not about the bill. Yeah Yeah Republicans didn't have any input in the bill. Well if you refuse to debate about it, you certainly won't get your points across.

I agree I don't want the bill to pass either but debate is debate and you better start debating it! That's your job!! So stop whining and start debating.

What I find interesting is how the following NY Times article talks about the cost of the Senate bill at $800+Billion like it's a bargain over the $1.03 Trillion House bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/health/policy/20health.html?_r=2&ref=health
Keep in mind that the federal government couldn't accurately estimate or even over estimate the cost of something like this. Trust me, it's well underestimated.

But who among us can actually imagine $800 billion? Let me break it down for you.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
At the time of this post, the U.S. population is listed at 307,996,114. Keep in mind that number is not working adults only. It includes children, retirees, stay at home moms, the unemployed, etc etc. That comes out to more than $2,597 per person. So if your family has 2 people think $5,200 or for a family of 4 more than $10,400. That's on top of the taxes you currently pay for this that and the other government programs. But don't forget you have to pay for those people that aren't contributing tax dollars. So add some more money onto your family's total to cover their share.

I'm just saying $800 billion is NOT a bargain for health care that they say is only going to cover 31 million people as opposed to the Houses versions 36 million. So they expect me to believe that only about 11% of the population is going to need the governments help? What do they think I'm stupid? I guess they aren't concerned about me though, just about the masses.

On a related note, if you don't think senator's votes on specific pieces of legislation aren't bought.
Check this out how Senator Mary Landrieu's vote to support the health care bill was purchased.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Don't think your Senator can be bought on either side of the aisle? I'd like to remind you of TARP and the "Stimulus" bills.

Call your senators. Call other senators. Or Write them. Tell them what you think.

Fascism

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert on Fascism. All I know is that Mussolini was a fascist, and I believe he was considered to be some sort of dictator. But I couldn't tell you what about his political policies made him a fascist. So I will be providing you with resources to study up on it as I will do as I put this post together.


From Websters:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

For more clarity on what fascism is, this is a very good in depth explanation of it. The whole article is worth reading. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
"...Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions."

People (I'm not sure who these "people" are) like to equate Socialism to far left and Fascism to far right ideology. Where I sense they are relatively the same thing with fascism being easier to accomplish as it pulls the wool over the eyes of the sheep blindly following the government that is selling it, as the sheep pump their fists and demand the government take care of their needs.


I don't know if we should technically be worried about our country headed for fascism or socialism. I don't think it matters which one since they are both trying to accomplish Utopian societies in the eyes of their supporters. I do think we shouldn't trust any group of people (politicians) that are motivated by power, that want to "provide for our needs"with our money and not theirs. Though they seem to think what's ours is theirs to do with as they please. Utopia on earth can't be accomplished while man is running the place.

Health Care Passed the House

Well if you were sleeping last night and didn't hear the news, the House passed their version of "health care reform."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

From the article: "Nancy Pelosi compared the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later."

I agree with that, just maybe not with the joy behind it that she most likely has. Two entitlement programs that are contributing to the bankruptcy of this country. If you essentially extend Medicare to the entire county, it will speed that up. I'd like to know how comfortable you all are with putting this burden on my generation and the generations to follow? They keep extending out the "retirement" age to receive social security and Medicare benefits. Robbing from the future to get what you want now.

Now that everyone has been depending on Social Security and Medicare for so long, you wouldn't get anyone to touch eliminating those entitlements on either side of the aisle. I'm guessing 80-90% of most Americans would be opposed to privatizing both since they've been paying in already they've learned to "trust" that the government will continue to send them a check every month and pay for their Medicare needs. What many of you may not realize about the "free" entitled part of Medicare. It only applies to in patient coverage. If you want Medicare out patient benefits, you have to buy into it, and yet it's still bankrupting us. Why do you think that is? Because there's no incentive to run it efficiently. If they are short on money, congress will just increase the budget for it.

That's how they are going to get this passed if it passes. They are going to call it an extension of Medicare to all which everyone is under the illusion it works so well for seniors while alienating the care to seniors by cutting the budget to them. I'm all for cutting that budget, but let's be real; we're just moving money from one group of people to another and then spending more on that new group of people. So where's the savings? Where's the money in my pocket? They keep taking it. And no one seems to care that any of us are pissed off about it. Because when it comes down to it, 90% or more of people may not want the government to spend money on this, but they certainly want them to spend money on their special interest, whatever that may be.

Whatever happened to the basics of infrastructure (roads, highways, bridges) and and army for defense? Whatever happened to the freedom to take care of ourselves as we see fit? When did it become appropriate to demand the government take care of our personal lives?

If you oppose this bill, you still have time to voice your opinion as it's not in the hands of the Senate. Call and write your senators and the senators of other states. Let them know their jobs depend on it. And then vote them out next time anyways. Let's impose term limits on all of them. They shouldn't be able to make a career out of spending our money.

On a bright note, apparently this version has no chance in the Senate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
Doesn't matter, keep hounding your sentators and others and then vote them out!! I'm not kidding about imposing term limits on them. That's our job!

Are You Happy With What is Going on in Washington?

The reason for the title is because I have two topics I'd like to discuss in this post. I just got back from a short vacation and had no time to discuss both points as they came up at the end of last week.

1st topic: Hate Crime Law and the Defense bill.

So in case you weren't paying attention last week homosexuality got added as a defined "hate crime." I'm not going to go into further details that crime done against anyone regardless of race, gender, beliefs, sexual preference, etc is hateful and so the term "Hate Crime" is somewhat redundant from my point of view or it should apply to all victims of crime, not just defined groups. My real point is to discuss how something like this gets tacked onto the defense bill, which is defined (by me) as the bill to outline the defense of our country. What does a qualifying group of people that get hate crime designation have to do with the defense of our our country?

I'm not opposed to discussing/proposing such a bill in legislation that is in the same category, such as crime. But this goes on all the time with various bills and what really offends me is when they tack on what was commonly referred to as "pork" during the last campaign, to a bill that will pass that has nothing to do with the "pork" item, just to get it through since it might not pass otherwise. This is part of the dirty deal making that happens in congress that must stop!!

I propose that bills must stay on topic. Perhaps they'd all be shorter. I doubt it, since they want to drone on long enough so that no one will bother to read them.

Topic 2: Cash For Clunkers, Success or Failure?

Not too long ago I posted on what defined the success or failure of the cash for clunkers program. On Thursday Edumunds.com posted what I would consider to be my definition of success or failure of it.

If you haven't read the article, check it out.
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html

Basically speaking, they determined that as of a result of the program 125,000 additional vehicles were sold as a result of the program. All other vehicles purchased during the program would have been purchased whether they got the rebate applied to their new purchase or not.
The program cost a total of $3 billion. That comes out to $24,000/additional car sold.

To be fair they did determine that some people that were going to purchase cars had no intentions of trading in an old car, but this isn't quantified, nor are the reasons stated for why they wouldn't have traded in that old car. So this may or may not provide evidence supporting environmental successes.

So what do you think now? Is spending $24,000 per additional car sold worth it to you? Have you changed your mind on the success or failure of the program? Do you find this indicative of how the government runs things? I do.

I would like to see the same analysis done on the new home rebate program. And yet they intend to extend this. (If they didn't already do it while I was gone.)

Do you really want them in charge of health care? Let me know what you think about all of this.

Death Penalty Controversy

There has been much controversy as of late in Texas. Do a search and you can find all sorts of information about it. Being from Texas I'm not immune to the reputation it has of being the leader in the country of executions. Over the last couple of years, DNA evidence has exonerated several death row inmates and now the state is paying restitution to them. This is costing the state ridiculous amounts of money on top of the money spent to try them and fight the numerous appeals they went through.

Here's what I think. I am not opposed to the death penalty, however it should only be eligible for criminals that are found guilty with DNA and/or conclusive video or witnessed evidence. If someone is found guilty without such evidence, then the death penalty should NOT be on the table for their sentence. If they do have such evidence that no appeals would result in overturning that conviction and they have been sentenced to death, then the sentence should be carried out swiftly.

What are your thoughts? Are you Anti-Death Penalty in all circumstances? Pro-Death Penalty? If so under what circumstances are you pro? Would you vote for or against a politician solely for his or her stance on the death penalty?

What's More Peaceful than a Dog?

Apparently President Obama is, who might I add was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before even taking office. Does anyone take these nominations/wins seriously? As Saturday Night Live so eloquently put it last night, he won for "not being Bush." Do you think he would have still won if he hadn't gotten elected? As a message to us that he is the one the Nobel Peace panel thinks should have been elected?

I'd also like to know how a global warming presentation, filled with some lies, is an effort at world peace.

I don't really care who wins the Nobel Peace Prize, it just seems to make a mockery when you give it out because of political ideals rather than peaceful actions. I don't think words are the same thing as actions. Especially since I don't see a drop in the efforts of terrorists around the world.

I do think my species is doing more for world peace than a bunch of speeches. What's more peaceful than a sweet dog? We open up the lines of communication. We soften the hearts of the hard. We bring comfort in pain and suffering. Break down barriers. I hope a dog wins next year.

Oh I also find it interesting that he's giving the prize money to charity. I agree with that decision and think it's the right thing to do in his position. But isn't he in the party that thinks government not charity is the answer to all your problems? Unless the charity he's giving it to turns out to be the government. At least be consistent. Personally I'd prefer to let charities rather than government hand out the majority of the assistance. The overhead is much greater when the government hands out the money.

Michael Moore - A Prosperous Hypocrite

I don't really know why I'm wasting a perfectly good post on this guy, but I think it's because I'm curious as to whether or not his hypocrisy is seen by all, or just some. Let's take his latest "documentary" for example "Capitalism: A Love Story." While I tend to agree with his hate of bail outs to AIG as shown in the previews, his overall theme of capitalism is evil, I take great exception to.

But the point of this post is not why I disagree with him. I've had plenty of posts that ought to cover that. If not, I'll be happy to write more. Most non-government workers can thank capitalism for their jobs. While government workers can thank regulation for theirs.

So if Michael Moore really hated capitalism, what should he do with all of the money he earns? Yes I said earn since he's producing a product that sells, even if only to a niche audience sometimes. He makes way more than I do. Shouldn't he hand it all over to the government to redistribute as they see appropriate? What should be done with it by his point of view?

I've got a thought. We have a large homeless population that panhandle to get enough money for their next fix here in Austin. Perhaps he should build a group home for them and single handedly support their laziness and their drug habits so they don't have to go to work like he does and they can stop panhandling from us. He can work for them. But if they get busted for panhandling, it's on him because he's agreeing (hypothetically) to provide their basic needs that they don't even seem motivated to provide for legitimately, which for them is food, shelter, and drugs or alcohol.

If he did this and lived in a modest middle class neighborhood, I wouldn't jump on him for his anti-capitalism rhetoric and point out his hypocrisy. I first read of his hypocrisy in the book "Do as I Say (Not as I do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." It's actually very interesting and a recommended read. I'm not saying there's not conservative hypocrisy. We hear about it all the time the minute it happens. We don't always hear of the liberal hypocrisy. Though I think life time politicians on either side of the aisle are walking examples of hypocrisy regardless of what does or does not make the 6:00 news.

I'd like to know your thoughts. Do you plan to see his movie? Do you agree that capitalism does more harm than good? And if Michael Moore makes money from his own capitalistic ventures, what should be done with that money after his basic needs are met?

Mandated Health Insureance a Tax Increase on the Middle Class?

You Decide

President Obama spoke with George Stephanopoulos. He claims the fact that George looked up the definition of tax in the dictionary is proof that's he's stretching that claim.

What do you think?



What I don't believe is that no matter how much he says it will be deficit neutral, there's no way in hell for that to happen. So I'd like to know how the president defines deficit neutral.