It happened so fast you could have blinked and missed it. Even more surprising is how fast it was quickly worked over and then silenced on, leading me, at least, to wonder: what exactly did he do?
What I am referring too is the release of Journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee this past Wednesday after being held for nearly 5 months in North Korea, on suspicion of illegally entering the country, by President Kim Jong Il. Their release came at the hands of former President Bill Clinton, whose presence was requested by leaders in North Koreas capital Pyongyang, to help end the political standoff with Washington over the release of the 2 reporters.
No matter how you view the situation-e.g. whether Ling and Lee were guilty of the crimes they were accused of-I find it very interesting that of all the people Jong Il wanted in North Korea to mediate with was Bill Clinton. Further, I found it amazing how fast Clinton succeeded in obtaining the release of the 2 reporters-it seems as if he had gotten their release the minute he landed in North Korea for negotiations.
So what did he give them in return? Well, we have no idea and since the story died nearly as soon as the women returned home, and Clinton is quoted as saying he cannot talk about what was discussed or what the terms of their release were, one still has to ask, not only what that price was, but was it too high?
Whether or not these women were unfairly held by the North Korean government is beside the point, particularly if the price of their release was something along the lines of the technology needed to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile-which would be too high a price in my opinion.
In all likelihood, Clinton offered something he couldn’t guarantee, which makes me even more nervous seeing as how North Korea is an official nuclear power now and is actively-and defiantly-seeking the technology mentioned above to create a long distance delivery system for the nuclear devices the international community believes them to have, which would make North Korea a threat to nearly every major country on the planet and a bigger worry given their suspected covert support of international terrorists groups like Al Qaeda. Therefore, if Clinton did in fact offer something he couldn’t deliver on, then all this will do is provoke the North Koreans even further, which, if I haven’t said it enough, is more than a little scary.
The NFL’s Hall of Fame game is this Sunday…That’s right baby, the NFL season is upon us!!!
For some reason it didn’t feel as long to me this year. Of course seeing as how my home team was the worst EVER last year, I have nothing to really look forward too, so there hasn’t been any anticipation on my part-which perhaps helped me get through the summer without any football. Regardless, it is upon us now so it’s time to take a look at what is going on, and boy do we have a lot of it.
We have a convict quarterback-Michael Vick-out on parole, reinstated (?!!) by the commish and looking for work. How Vick got re-instated I have no clue. The man is a felon, and in my opinion, felons do not deserve ANY job which permits them a stance in the public spot light. It sends the wrong message to our young people and tells all athletes that you can perpetuate heinous crimes and still, in the long run, “get away with it”. Call me conservative (which I’m not), but to me, that’s just wrong. Hopefully no teams will express a real interest in Vick and he will stay where he belongs: on his couch watching the games like the rest of us “normal guys”…
We have a soon to be convict, and former Superbowl superstar in Plaxico Burress, indefinitely suspended and facing what looks to be a minimum 3 and a half years in prison for shooting himself in the leg (hahahahahahahaha) with an unregistered gun. For some reason Burress, whom I hold no sympathy for after such stupid ass actions, is being head-hunted by the New York state attorney (where this crime took place). You would think that being a New York Giant, Burress would get a free pass for such stupidity but apparently the state has been looking to make an example of someone under their tough gun laws for a while now, and now they have the perfect victim. It’s just lucky for the Giants that Burress’s contract was up so they won’t suffer at the hands of his stupidity…
We had more drama around “TO” this off season, as we witnessed what we all expected-the bitter split between Owens and the Cowboys. Talk about a head case. Terrell Owens is another of those players who doesn’t deserve the stage he gets to perform on every year for 7 months. The man has an ego the size of Jupiter and thinks the NFL world revolves around him. I’m not sure if I should feel sorry for the Buffalo Bills-who signed him to a contract-or chastise them for picking up someone who is going to be an obvious cancer in the locker room. Whatever the Bills are paying Owens, he isn’t worth it. Owens’ skills have fallen dramatically in the last 2 seasons and it’s obvious he is not the playmaker he once was. He, just like that idiot “ocho cinco”, hasn’t been one of the elite receivers since he helped the Eagles get to the Superbowl 5 or 6 years ago. In sum, he needs to fade away and let others have some time in the spotlight, instead of hogging in all to himself through his selfish and stupid actions, and pathetic play.
Draft drama continues with the idiocy of Michael Crabtree-the standout receiver from Texas Tech whom the 49ers drafted 10th this year. Apparently Crabtree is good friends with Terrell Owens and Ocho Cinco, because one of his “advisors” told the media this week that he, Crabtree, is willing to sit out the entire year and re-enter the draft next year, if the 49ers do not come up with a suitable contract offer for him. Are you kidding me?!! This kid is barely out of diapers and hasn’t proved shit to ANYONE at the pro level and his dumb ass advisors have the audacity to make a statement like this?!!! If I were the 49ers I’d let the dumb fuck sit on principle alone and for being stupid enough to hire such a moronic “advisor”. Give me a break. The guy is a great athlete, but he obviously is either prone to making bad choices as it relates to the people he surrounds himself with, or has an unjustifiably, over inflated opinion of himself…
2 time Superbowl champion QB Ben Roethlisberger showed he is not the clean cut perfect man every Pittsburgh native believes him to be when he was accused this off season of sexual assault in Las Vegas. Due to the time past, Roethlisberger won’t be charged criminally, but the woman is going after his money. This is another case of pro athletes making really, realllllllly bad decisions. I don’t know if “Big Ben” assaulted this women or not (though I doubt it, seeing as how she waited for, like, ever to come out with it) but he obviously put himself into some sort of sticky situation at some point which, in turn, created the environment for these accusations to be made against him. So far, he hasn’t been suspended, but it will be interesting to see if this plays out the way the Kobi Bryant case did a few years back or if there is really something there with this one…
Of course what would the off season have been without any Brett Favre drama. Will he retire? Where will he go? Who is interested in him? Good grief! It was enough to make my stomach turn. Worse, in my opinion, these stupid off season antics of his the last 2 years have tarnished his otherwise excellent perception in the public eye. Fortunately, Favre made the right decision finally, and decided to stay retired despite some obvious interest on the part of the (desparate?) Minnesota Viqueens (teehee)…
We heard residents all over New England sigh with relief at the return of an obviously healthy Tom Brady to the practice field a few weeks ago. This is a nice change to most of the idiot news we seem to get out of pro football these days. Not to build the guy up any more than he already is, but there is a reason why Brady is upheld as the beacon of all that is good and right about pro sports-the man doesn’t fuck it all off like so many others do. He always holds himself up with respect and pride, which carries over into his play both on and off the field. So sorry for the media though because this makes him rather boring to cover, but tough I say; the paparazzi need to get a life and stop hounding people just because they can. Needless to say, the American sports world needs more Tom Brady’s and A LOT fewer Plaxico Burress’s and Michael Vick’s…
And, last, but not least, we have my Let-Downs-the worst team in the history of the league last year (sorry, but I don’t think that point can be expressed enough). The pathetic Lions cannot be any worse can they? Actually, truth be told, they could be. Last year, they managed to win all of their pre season games, so, literally speaking, they won 4 times last season before going 0-fer in the regular season. As everyone by now knows, I never saw the problems with the Lions as stemming from Matt Millen, but from their owner-Moron Ford, Sr. That said, the Lions have made some good moves this year. I am not a fan of their draft picks-how they could draft 2 offensive players in the first round when they fielded the 2nd worst defense in league history last year I’ll never figure out-but, apparently, those they did draft look pretty good in camp so far. The new coaching staff I like a lot, but, at the risk of sounding like the proverbial broken record, none of it really matters!!!! The Lions will always be the pathetic “let downs” because of their owner-who has no clue to run a business of any kind! Needless to say, I’m not keeping my hopes up that the Lions will pull off what the Dolphins did last year-going from worst to first in their division.
But, I digress…Whew…I know I barely scratched the surface, but obviously, as always in the NFL, there is a lot to talk about and a lot too follow as the season wear’s on-which is why it’s the greatest sport on Earth. So, are you ready for some football?
In my previous post I picked 10 accusations made against what has come to be known as Obama-care and compared them to the exact verbiage within the bill that they are drawn from. After doing so, I have also had a chance to better look over this bill and analyze it for myself.
In a word, I am scared-particularly after hearing on a national news program today that Mr. Obama intends to push this bill through with or without the support of the Republican party.
What scares me is that, on close analysis there is both covert and overt intent on the part of our current congressional and presidential leaders to control us and our lives from birth to death. Not only does this bill have the feel of personal control over our daily lives, but it also explicitly looks to direct involve the Federal Government into both our Health Care system by telling us how much and what kinds of care we can have under this bill, and by attempting to reset the standard of health care both by what small and medium sized businesses will offer to their employees and the level of services and care provided under the plans which will be available outside of “Government Healthcare”.
Worse still is that the Fed looks to punish those businesses who do not take on the Government plan by taxing them between 2-6% of their gross payroll’s and further punishing those healthcare providers who do not adjust their plans to comply with the standard set by the Government or which do not join a so called “Health Insurance Exchange”, the purpose of which is, at best, hard to understand.
Regardless of how you feel about our Federal Government becoming even further involved in our Healthcare systems, one of 2 things are going to happen to businesses if this bill makes it through Congress and becomes law: Firstly, if businesses choose to keep their own health insurance, thereby taking on up to an additional 6% tax on their gross payrolls, their prices are going to have to increase to cover that new expense.
For businesses who choose to take the Government option, they can be assured of losing their best employees due to what will be, without question, a far inferior health care plan for themselves and their family. This could also result in many people simply avoiding being employed by companies whose healthcare is that of the federally provided variety because it won’t be too long before it’s known that “Obama-care” is barely care at all.
As far as the bill itself goes, it has many terrible aspects to it.
Healthcare under this bill is limited to only $10,000 per year per family or $5000 per year for one person. Considering that a fracture to just about any limb of the body could max this coverage out in just one visit to the hospital, it’s more than obvious that this plan is horribly inefficient. Compounding the issue of coverage is that under this plan, those doctors and hospitals which are deemed as “eligible” providers are not allowed to invest in or expand upon the places which they work; doctor’s wages are also set to some degree under this plan. These 2 things combined will force young, would-be doctors, into other fields due to the financial incentives being stripped of the profession-e.g. who is going to want to spend 10 years of additional schooling and not be able to be properly reward themselves once they are finished, all the while acquiring $10’s of thousands in debt. This scenario will eliminate the best and brightest among us from ever pursuing a career as a doctor, thereby dumbing down the profession and, in the long wrong, making our health care the worse for it.
Even the auspices under which this bill came into being were false: that our health care system is failing, too expensive, and that nearly 40 million Americans cannot afford health care. As always, the truth wills out in these situations and once the numbers were broken down, the reality of it is that only 10-12 million Americans cannot “afford” health care, and of those who do have health care, a recent study found that 80% of them were happy with the quality of the care they receive.
As for the cost of our health care, there is little question that there is a problem there, but that is more due to the fact that it is law that hospitals provide care to anyone who walks into an emergency room-which they have health insurance or the money to pay or not-and the chronic suer-suee problem we have in this country forcing idiotic lawsuits on people whose insurers end up paying the costs for and then passing that expense down to their policy holders. It’s needless to say that there are better ways to confront the cost of health care in our country than to have the Fed get more involved in “the game”, so to speak.
Then of course there is the cost-which is pointless to bring up because everyone knows that, as a nation, we simply cannot afford the mass providing of Federally subsidized health care.
In sum, “Obama-care” is a horrible idea. Fortunately, most people are aware of the horrors which await us if this bill some how passes and American’s all over the country are speaking out against. The problem right now is that our so call President seems hell bent on passing this bill. Just today it was reported that he will get this bill passed with or without the approval of Republicans. Not only does this speak to a man drunk with power, but also to one on the verge of dictatorial leanings, and if this turns out to be the case with Mr. Obama, then this health care bill is only the beginning of our problems.
All of us have gotten at least one email lately about how bad the current federally funded health care plan before Congress is right now, commonly known as “Obama-care”. Most mass media outlets gloss over the negatives in this bill-which appear to be many-and the only legitimate attempt at pointing out even a few of the negatives came in the form of a Yahoo news piece about 2 weeks ago which listed 5 “changes” that we will be forced to accept if Obama-care passes.
As my friends and family all know, I in no way support this health care bill-not so much for what is contained within it, but more because the Fed has no business even attempting such a thing (I mean, come on, look at the mess Medicare is). However, a problem I am having with all of these emails is that they are full of opinion and very light on facts. They all make some very wild claims about what could happen if Obama-care passes without giving us the exact verbiage within the bill which leads them to draw these rather extreme conclusions.
Well, being the inquisitive person that I am, and always wanting to know the facts before I make any formal opinion on anything, I took it upon myself to find out exactly what the proposed healthcare bill says regarding 10 of the more extreme suppositions being drawn from Obama-care.
So here goes, 10 of the crazier suppositions in these emails we are all getting, measured up against the language within in the bill they are drawn from so that you can decide for yourself exactly what “Obama-care” will do to our economy and our healthcare system.
The Fed will have to ration our Healthcare.
Common sense and our Federal Governments past as to how business savvy (cough, cough) they are should tell us that this is an inevitability, so it’s not unfair to assume that this is going to happen at some point. Regardless, the exact verbiage relating to this can be found on page 29 of the bill. It says that there is an annual limitation defined as: Part A “The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph; B) The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.
The plan goes on to further define this, and only makes it sound worse. Regardless, I don’t know about you, but it sounds to me as if the max any family can spend on healthcare a year is $10k and for a single person it’s $5k. This sounds worse than rationing to me, but you can decide for yourself.
You will have no choice in what benefits the Fed will choose for you.
Beginning on page 42, section 142, the bill establishes a commissioner whose duties include “Qualified Plan Standards”. No where does the bill say that you have no choice in what benefits you can have, but it does blatantly imply that the Fed will choose what benefits you are entitled too.
Based on everything else found in this bill, however, the supposition is easy to draw that they you wont have any say in the choice of what health care options you will have.
A “Healthcare Exchange is being created to bring all health care plans under government control.
The establishment of this so called “exchange” starts on page 72 of the bill. Although nowhere within its early verbiage does it say anything about bringing all other health care plans under its control, if you read on you can see how, in the future, this may be the intent behind creating this so called “exchange”.
Healthcare will be provided to all non U.S. residents, whether here legally or not.
This is just downright wrong and is what lead me to actually do the research myself. At the bottom of page 50 of the bill is a section titled “Prohibiting discrimination in health care”. The first part of this section says “Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.”
You can take this for how you want, but it does sound as if you are a provider of governmental health care you cannot prevent someone from getting health “care” for any reason what so ever.
Doctors will be told by the Fed what they can make.
This is actually true. If you read the bill, it specifies on page 127, sub section B “preferred physicians” will receive payment at a “rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost sharing)” as being paid in full for their services. Sub Section C goes on to say that “non-preferred” physicians “agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848 (g)(2)(c) of the Social Security Act.
I didn’t take a look at the referenced section of the SSA but I did take a look at section 223 of the bill. This section pretty much says that the Secretary in charge of overseeing implementation and collection of the fees and rates has the power to set these rates based on the rates, but that they must be based on the established rates already found in Medicare parts A and B.
6.Employees of the Fed Healthcare Administration will have unlimited accessto all Americans financial and personal records.
This is, without question, one of the scarier accusations of all the emails we are getting about this bill. Here is what the healthcare bill says about this on page 195: “IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to (i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, (ii) the filing status of such taxpayer, (iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)), (iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer, (v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and (vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.
Fortunately this doesn’t say that anyone who works for the Healthcare Administration can look into our personal finances whenever they want and for any reason they want too, but it does say that they can if they are given the authority too by their superiors and under specific guidelines. Those guidelines, however, aren’t really that specific as you can see and could be easily exploited.
Doctors and hospitals are prohibited from investing and/or expanding the facilities in which they work.
This is freakish but completely true. For brevity at this point I won’t go into the specific verbiage the bill goes into, but over pages 316-320 it specifically says that from the day this bill is implemented both Doctors and hospitals can no longer reinvest or continue to invest in their own institutions. You can only assume that this is because the intention of this bill is to make it so that every healthcare facility in the country becomes the sole and explicit property of the Federal Government.
8.There is a restriction as too how many “special needs” people can be on theplan.
Page 354 starts with section 1154, called “Extension of Authority of Special Needs”. The first sub heading of this section is called “Plans to restrict enrollment”.
Enough said.
9.The Fed will plan out “end of life” for all senior citizens.
This is another scary thing which was passed around in the emails and beginning on page 425 with section 1233 of the bill, is titled “Advance care planning consultation. Again, for brevity I will leave it to you to read this section, but it leaves you without a question as to the intent of this part of the bill.
10.The bill effectively ends both Medicare and Medicaid.
No where in the over 1000 pages of this bill will you find anything about the elimination of either of these programs. However, the bill makes it very clear in several places 2 things about both of them: firstly that different aspects of the bill are going to be based, at least in part, on aspects of either or both Medicare and Medicaid. Secondly, the bill does very little to differentiate between this program and Medicare and Medicaid. In the case of Medicaid, the bill explicitly says they plan to force everyone on to Medicaid who is eligible-whether they want Medicaid or not. The bill also says the same for seniors.
I intentionally waited to see how the situation between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge police department shook out before commenting on it, when mid of last week, Barack Obama decided to wade in head first without looking. During a speech last week on Health Care reform, our ‘esteemed’ Dict….er, President called out the Cambridge police department saying they were “ignorant” in their actions…
It’s not often that you will find me taking the side of Liberals and our President on an issue, but this time I have to say that I agree with what Obama had to say on this issue and, even more so, how exactly he said it.
For too long now, police departments nationwide (particularly here in Southern Florida) have ‘shot first and asked questions’ later. I understand that those who undertake the difficult job of becoming a police officer deal with things on a daily basis that you and I couldn’t possibly dream of, but it is becoming more and more apparent that those who take up these difficult jobs, lack any common sense themselves, and are perpetually doomed to failure in situations when the use of their better judgment is required.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that Gates, a black man, in no way fits the stereotype that one would associate with someone who is burglarizing a home-particularly in Cambridge, MA. For one, the man was wearing some pretty expensive clothing at the time of his arrest; for two, he was obviously educated and well spoken. These 2 facts alone should have tipped the officer off enough to at least allow the man to prove who he claimed he said he was at the time-that is, the owner of the home he was being accused of 'breaking in' to.
This in turn leads me to the claims by both men which resulted in the eventual arrest of Mr. Gates. For Sergeant James Crowley, the arresting officer, he claims that Mr. Gates was belligerent and aggressive, leading to his making the arrest for disorderly conduct, a charge which has since been dropped. For Mr. Gates’ part, he claims the officer was being rude and aggressive himself, insinuating things with his general tone and demeanor which he found insulting and in turn, obviously felt obligated to defend himself vociferously.
Personally, I am torn on this issue.
Firstly, I hate that this has become an issue of “racism”-a false term in my opinion, and a discussion that I will maybe get into at another time.
On the flip side, I am happy that this is raising some serious questions about how our police officers conduct themselves in situations where their lack of judgment, especially when facing obvious evidence to the contrary, puts them into embarrassing situations with potentially drastic consequences-for both the arresting officer and the accused. As someone who has, unfortunately, been on the ‘wrong side of the law’, it has been obvious to me for some time that most (not all) police officers fail to use any judgment whatsoever in every situation they find themselves in. This behavior is what creates the feelings of distrust and abuse on the part of communities as a whole, relative to their policing agencies, whose job it is to maintain law and order and whose further duties it is to serve and protect the public. Sergeant Crowley showed such poor judgment in his actions that he has again made it all too easy for a large portion of the American public to look down upon our nation’s law enforcement agencies as nothing more than bullies looking for an outlet for their inability to deal with their own personal issues.
Unfortunately, Mr. Gates immediately took the ‘racist’ side of this argument, making it all too easy for many people to look past the obvious mistakes by Sergeant Crowley, thereby giving Crowley some community wide support because such arguments are as socially polarizing as the abortion debate. This in turn takes away from what I see as the real issue: that of the lack of the use of judgment are the part of our “LEO’s”.
She leaves the national political scene the same way she came into it: suddenly and controversially. Sarah Palin, the attractive former Governor from Alaska, shocked the political world in the summer of 2008 when she was chosen by John McCain as his Vice Presidential nominee. With her striking good looks, well spoken manner and tough, ‘pit bull’ political style, the admittedly Conservative Republican captured the attention of everyone last year and continued to do so in defeat, but then just 3 weeks ago she decided to step down as Alaska’s Governor with 18 months left in her term, leaving us all to ask why?
Question’s and theories abound as to why Palin decided to leave her office prematurely: there are ethics probes and mounting legal bills, all pointing to something sinister in her political background. And then there are the countless rumors of her courtship by Hollywood to host a TV show (perhaps a more republican version of The View?), rumors of book deals and a potential run up to the Republican nomination to run for president in 2012. No matter what her reasons, one thing I think we can all say with certainty is that she isn’t going to go quietly into the night. For better or for worse, we have far from seen the last of Sarah Palin.
Whether this is a good thing, I know not. I was never a huge fan of the McCain/Palin ‘ticket’ last year, but I did like that Sarah Palin spoke well, spoke her mind without remorse, took no bullshit from the establishment and would go as far as necessary to expose corruption where it prevailed-even within the confines of her own party. Her hard conservative beliefs turned me off, but I don’t believe she would have ever tried to force them down anyone’s throats. Personally, I always thought she would lead by example as those things were concerned, which was something I could respect.
Regardless, for now we must say goodbye to Sarah Palin and turn a questioning eye as too why? Why now and what for? Is there some seriousness to some questionable ethics practices on her part in Alaska? Probably, but I have my reasons to doubt that it could be anything worse than we see out of politicians on a daily basis in this country. Whatever her motives may be for her sudden departure from the Alaskan Governorship, we will be questioning why for some time to come, but there are 2 things we can say for certain about it: she leaves the national political scene-most likely temporarily-the same way she came into it-with more questions than answers; and, as a red blooded American male, it’s not a bad thing to watch her walk away…
As part of a near $trillion stimulus package our Federal Government-specifically Barack Obama-has stuck in a little bill called “cash for clunkers”. This bill grants up to $3500 in trade in value, towards a new car, for cars that are no more than 25 years old and get 18 mpg or less.
For proper implementation this program is being spearheaded with car dealerships nationwide, which brings me to a serious problem and points out the dangers of our Federal Government getting involved in any direct way with our economy: How is this going to affect the real world values of our cars?
Under this bill all cars which fit the criteria are valued the same. That early 1990’s clunker of a Buick, with 150k and sitting on blocks, is potentially worth the same as your 2001 Hummer that you paid $40K for.
Even worse, the newer your car, the less its value becomes.
Going back to the Hummer-an easy vehicle to pick on in this case-what about all those which are 5-8 years old? They are still blue booked in the area of $10-20k and now dealerships will be giving no more than $3500 for them because there is no incentive to do so. This same logic applies to any and all SUV’s which fit the criteria of a “cash for clunker” because there is NO demand for any of these vehicles currently due to the price of gasoline and economic restraints.
An even worse part of this bill is that all of these cars which are traded in under the “cash for clunkers” bill is that they must be scraped-meaning they can’t be resold as is which makes them all worthless. This, in effect undermines Capitalism at its most basic of levels, making the “cash for clunkers” idea not only a bad one, but just another prime example of why the Federal Government has no clue what being “productive” means and why it needs to be no more than a regulating body for only specific sectors of economy. Needless to say the cash for clunkers bill is a bad one, and we won’t be seeing the ramifications of this “feel good” legislation for years to come. My only hope is that the automotive industry survives it. The Big 3 already have enough issues to deal with, but with the Fed resetting the value of used cars, it will only be harder for the American automotive industry to survive as a private enterprise.
But then, seeing as how the Fed already owns nearly 2/3 of GM and Chrysler, perhaps that is exactly what they want to happen so as to take control of the entire industry themselves.
Of course, the only saving grace of the cash for clunkers program is that it is temporary, but however long it lasts is relevant if the damage to the value of cars becomes permanent.
The general consensus definition of crime is an illegal act committed against an individual or the state, or some such vernacular which says something similar. If you ask any average person on the street as to what makes a criminal a ‘criminal’ more often than not the word violence comes out as a part of the criminal’s actions. For hundreds of years, when it came to defining a criminal or felon, violence seemed to be a prerequisite, with more so called “petty” crimes thought of as civil infractions or public nuisances punishable by a fine or maybe a night in the local jail, but with no permanence of a record attached or negative label to be lived with. As a result, those who were caught on things such as public drunkenness or disorderly conduct of some kind were never branded as being a “criminal” or felon; they were a public nuisance on the level of the stray dog who refused to leave the public square, but they never had to be worried about being thought of in the same light as murders and rapists. Today, in 21st century America, with all of its liberal socialistic laws, everything short of speeding infractions is considered a “crime”, making it very easy to be branded a “criminal”-at least in the eyes of the states and their laws.
Get arrested for a suspended driver’s license-you are a criminal.
Get caught using a bush to relieve yourself because you couldn’t hold it any longer while waiting in line at the Porta Potty-you’re a criminal.
Get a little loud, but not physical, with your significant other after a bad week, leading to a neighbor calling the police and whomever they determine to arrest becomes, you guessed it, a criminal.
Needless to say, just about anything today that is deemed “punishable” by law or which is considered an “arrestable” offense, makes it all to easy for you, or anyone you know, to become a criminal. There are 10’s of thousands of laws in America which cover every possible “out of the norm” act imaginable, to the point that it is nearly impossible for anyone to not become a criminal. In fact, I’d be willing to bet, that not one American has not committed a “crime” at some point in their life, and the only difference between them and those with a record is that they never got caught.
Compounding matters for people just trying to get by and stay out of legal trouble is the ease with which it now is to become a Felon-if being a criminal wasn’t bad enough, becoming a “felon” is something no one wants to be called.
Felons are considered to be the most heinous of all people in our society. They are the worst of the worst. To be a felon used to mean that you had committed crimes so atrocious, so violent against society, that many of the rights guaranteed to you by our Constitution were stripped from you-leaving you barely half a citizen in the legal sense. Today, however, state and local laws have made it much easier to become a felon. Many states have what are called “habitual” statutes for so call repeat offenders of non violent, lesser crimes (misdemeanors) which, once you are classified as a habitual offender, you become a felon. The problem with many of these laws that you can be habitualized for is the ease with which a person can be arrested for the original offense-particularly as it relates to traffic laws, most commonly driving under a suspended license.
In many states, as here in the state of Florida, once you get 3 arrests for driving with a suspended license, you become a felon-a ridiculous notion given the ease at which states can suspend and keep your license suspended relative to a mode of transit that is unquestionably a necessity in today’s society. In fact, if ever given the opportunity, take a look at the reasons for which your state can suspend a persons license and it will shock you. So vast and varied are the laws for which states can take your license-pretty much for every and anything-that having a valid drivers license is almost entrapment, and its no wonder that very few people ever get only one violation for driving on a suspended license and why so many eventually become a felon over a relatively victimless crime.
Of course state lawmakers would have you think otherwise. They would tell you of the epidemic like proportions as to the number of people driving on a suspended license and the cost that these drivers pass along to everyone else via increases in car insurance rates, all the while ignoring the fact that they have made it many times easier to lose your driving privileges than it is to keep them.
Pointing out the idiocy of license laws is all too easy, but in the state of Florida you can be habitualized for such petty crimes as simple battery (giving someone a black eye) and petty theft (stealing a candy bar) thereby allowing for a whole new genre of felon’s that essentially become wards of the state-dependant on government programs such as welfare, social security and food stamps for survival, which could very well be what our politicians want-a class of people, which they create, dependent on them for survival.
Of course, if you are willing to do the crime you have to be willing to do the time, but there is a rational and logical line that I believe has been crossed by our laws when it becomes easier to become a criminal than to be a productive citizen, and this, I believe, is one of the biggest problems with “crime” in America today-not necessarily the people committing them, but the laws through which you can be made a “criminal”.
Due to extensive research I am currently conducting for another project, I am learning some things about the history of our Constitution which I either didn’t know or had forgotten. Among those things which I had forgotten was some of the details concerning the Constitutional debates of 1787 which eventually gave birth to the U.S. Constitution.
When reading those debates, you learn exactly what it was that our nation’s Founding Father’s thought and how they believed our nation’s government should not only be structured, but what the purposes for each branch of our government are. While securing the purpose for each branch of our government, our Founding Fathers also attached each branch of our Federal Government to a different form of election to help preserve that purpose.
The House of Representatives was intended to represent the citizens of America, and therefore was to be elected by popular vote from the districts to which they would represent; members of the Senate represented the states from which they were selected, and were therefore to be elected by each state’s legislature; there was much debate over how to elect the President as his primary job(s) was to serve as commander in chief of our Nation’s armed forces and as a legislative check against both houses of our Congress. In the end, it was decided that so called “electors” would be chosen by popular vote, who would then "elect" our President in the Electoral College. This left the Supreme Court which was to be chosen by the President, with confirmation by Congress.
For over 120 years this is how all 4 branches of our Federal Government were elected and/or selected, as such they served their respective purposes (and electors) dutifully, allowing America to quickly (relative to its age) rise to become the most powerful nation on the planet due to the freedoms and responsibility assumed and espoused upon its citizenry.
But then a fundamental change was approved of to our Constitution in early April of 1913: Senator’s were now to be elected by popular election (the 17th amendment), and so 3 of the 4 branches of our Federal Government were to be, in some way, elected through popular vote (i.e. Democracy).
For students of Philosophy, what happened within the next 20 years, after the passage of the 17th amendment, should be no surprise: First, the back bone of our economy essentially collapsed in the 1929 Stock Market crash which forced America into what became called The Great Depression. Shortly there after, Franklin Roosevelt was forced to take drastic measures to stabilize the economy and our society by writing a set of bills called The New Deal which established heretofore unacceptable socialist programs regulated from within the Federal Government. From this time on ward it is easy to trace the Socialistic progression of our Federal Government (especially when under control of the Democratic Party) to where it is today.
By now you may be asking what all this history has to do with my perceived “useless”ness of the U.S. Senate. It’s rather simple, really, if you understand how our nation was intended to be governed and what the purpose of each branch of our national government was.
Once our Senate began to be elected by the people at large, it no longer served its intended purpose. In the beginning-and for its first 120 years or so-the U.S. Senate’s purpose was to serve the states, not the people, therefore it’s members were elected by the state governments for which they represented and not the people at large. Once our U.S. Senator’s became elected by the people, this greatly skewed the balance of power, and how legislation was viewed, within our Federal governing body. With each state no longer having an independent say in how legislation was passed, the power of making and creating laws was shifted from one of balance between the people, the republics (i.e. the states) and the greater Federal Government to one nearly completely controlled by the public through Democratic election. By becoming elected through popular election, the purpose of the U.S. Senate became meaningless-they simply became 2 more popularly elected members of the House of Representatives, just under the guise of another name.
For student’s of Philosophy this is very relevant because Democratic elections by popular vote are viewed as not only a predecessor to chaos, but are also seen as base socialistic policy (i.e. Socialism), which is why the current state of our country, and the current socialistic agenda being so readily supported by our current Federally elected leaders, should come as no surprise.
With 3 of the 4 branches of our Government chosen through popular election (i.e. society) is it any wonder that our nation has become progressively socialist since the early 20th century? With the natural checks and balances of our original Constitution now in large part removed, what was once considered a Democratic Republic (the United States of America), is now a pure Democracy and pure Democracies are doomed to failure due to their tendency towards chaos (and if you don’t see the chaos that dominates our country today, then you are in more trouble than our country is).
Is there a fix? Absolutely.
Is it an easy fix? Easy, no, but it is a simple one.
Will we fix it? Not likely.
Even average every day people like power, and the only power of any kind most people in America will ever experience is the power to elect their local and national leaders, so it would be unrealistic to think that they would ever give up their “right” to elect our Senators.
No, unfortunately, that right (to the states) is gone for good-unless Americans learn to understand what is supposed to make our nation great; why our nation has been losing that greatness over the last 100 years; and how to fix it.
If you have never heard about the FairTax then I strongly encourage you to go to www.fairtax.org or to buy The FairTax Book by John Linder and Neal Boortz, in the meantime, if you read on you will learn the basic’s of it. Before I get started, I am admittedly a huge supporter of the FairTax, but in no way am I being paid to propagate it. I am merely a very vocal supporter and believer in the FairTax, which has the ability to not only turn our economy around instantly, but also put us back were we belong in the global economy-as it’s leader.
The FairTax (known as H.R. 25 in Congressional lingo) is a plan currently before Congress which replaces the current system of taxation in America. Essentially the FairTax is a tax on consumption (i.e. sales tax), but it is not a tax of addition to what we have now, it is a tax of replacement to what we have now. So don’t think that if it were passed things would cost 23% more (the current estimate of the FairTax) than they do now. To the contrary, in many cases-such as medical services-goods and services would cost less.
To properly understand the beauty of the FairTax you have to understand 2 things first: free market capitalism and the fundamentals of our current system of taxes.
In free market capitalism the consumer (i.e. purchaser or buyer) dictates the success and failure of goods and services, as such this ideology puts you, as the purchaser/buyer, in a position of power. Unfortunately, most American’s either do not realize this or are incapable of accepting it as a supposed “leadership” role they do not want. Either way, whether you think it or not, as an American buyer, you have power in our economy, which is a great thing.
The current system of taxation in America is one of taxing income-on individuals and businesses. More properly, it’s a taxation on earnings and/or profits, but I will stick with a taxation based on income because that is an ideology which everyone understands. Something which people are not aware of as it relates to our current system of taxation is that it was illegal until the 16th amendment was added to our constitution in 1913. In it, the power was granted to our Federal Government to collect and assess taxes on our incomes. To grasp how extreme this idea was, you have to first realize that, to most of the founding fathers of our nation, national governments had no business assessing and collecting taxes on the public at large because this was seen as a symbol of servitude and/or enslavement: only Kings and Dictators collected taxes, they believed, and they weren’t set about creating a government of either. They were creating a government by the people, for the people and of the people. So, needless to say, the idea of setting and collecting an income tax was an extreme one even when the 16th Amendment was added in 1913.
At first, the American “Income tax” was set as a simple percentage where by American’s took how much they made each year, multiplied it by a set percentage and wrote the Fed a check for that amount. However it wasn’t long before Politicians discovered how vastly so “simple” a system of taxing incomes could be manipulated and once the idea of “withholding” came into being the current 60,000 or so pages of I.R.S. codes and regulations that we know of today were well on its way to reality.
What this has to do with you and the FairTax is quite simple really. You see, everyone-and every business and corporation-is taxed in some way by our Federal Government. Businesses-both large and small-consider taxes an expense and, like all expenses, they are incorporated into the cost of the goods and services that we, the consumers and purchasers, eventually pay for. Now, the people who have been working on the FairTax for the last 20 years or so have hired many an economist (of both a republican and democratic political ideology) to find out exactly how much of the price of goods we pay is in these embedded taxes prior to paying a state sales tax. The number they came up with varied depending on the industry from 22-26%, of which, the writer and supporters of H.R. 25-the FairTax bill-settled on 23%. (When thinking of this number, keep in mind the vast amount of taxes a business pays. Not only do they pay taxes on their incomes, but they also pay payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and matching social security taxes to name a few other taxes that they have to pay, which is one big reason why it's so hard to start and stay in business in America).
What the FairTax does is this: it rewrites our tax code and removes all of these embedded taxes which you and I, as consumers, pay for anyways, and replaces them with the FairTax. What would happen is that, at the point of sale, the price we pay for goods and services would be cheaper before the FairTax (and your state sales taxes) are added to it. Because that 23% of previously embedded taxes has now been removed from the cost of what you are buying, the price you pay ends up being the same after the fair tax is added back on (in some cases it will be cheaper). One of the neat things is, that your receipt of sale or bill of goods will reflect this price and how much tax you paid to the Federal Government.
So what does it mean for you and I, the consumers? A lot; it means no more filling out of tax forms and filing a return every year. It means no more taxes on “interest earned” or “capital gains. It means that if you make $500 bucks a week, you keep $500 bucks a week. It means that, individually, we have control over how much in taxes we contribute to our Federal Government each year (not owe) because the tax we pay is based on our spending habits and not on our income. In a nutshell, it means real freedom for you and I.
For businesses it means even more (which means more for you and I as well).
For them it means no more payroll and corporate taxes, which would make it very desirable for companies to establish their regional and global headquarters in America (and producing their goods here too), thereby creating 1000’s, if not millions, of new jobs for American’s. It means new industry and growth and it also means economic stability and putting America’s economy ahead of every other economy on the planet. Most importantly, I believe it will mean accountability to us, the voting public, on the part of our nationally elected leaders-which is something they haven't had to worry about in decades.
Of course this is a very scaled down analysis of the FairTax and I’m sure you have many more questions about it, for which I would direct you to www.fairtax.org or The FairTax Book for answers…Hopefully you will become as vocal a supporter of the FairTax as I am, and help to make it reality so that we can take back control of our money from the government.
I've been a thinker, problem solver and "questioner" of the status quo for as long as i can remember. I'm a Radio Broadcast and Broadcast Journalism Major and work within both fields (my writing is primarily sports related). Since i was 11 or 12 years old, however, i have studied politics, philosophy(including religious and spiritual beliefs), social and socio-economic theory and Business and Investment trends as hobbies. As such, my independant studies left me without any hard political slants. Politically speaking I have no allegiance to any one party. I consider myself an individual-not "independant".I am also a huge sports fan which is a good thing seeing as how I cover a lot of local sports where I live (lol). Needless to say my blog will cover a wide range of topics, but hopefully my passion, logic and reason-as politics and social theory are concerned-will show through.
I hope you enjoy...
Ryles
