I keep waiting, apparently in vain, for someone to state the obvious – at least obvious to me. The occupant of the Office of the President of the United States of America has become irrelevant. During Fareed Zakaria’s interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad a week or so ago, I was startled when Ahmadinejad said that the American President really can’t do anything. That fact is apparently obvious to everyone but those of us fretting over the Republican debates and President Obama’s campaign tours. We are acting as if whoever wins the president’s seat in 2012 will be able to accomplish something – with or without his or her party dominating Congress. And the Republican candidates for President don’t seem to understand that being elected will definitely not guarantee the opportunity to implement anything promised on the campaign trail. Presidents Bush and Obama learned this the hard way, even though President Obama is struggling to maintain the illusion. Consequently, we have suffered the almost total destruction of our economy. And the constant, politically motivated criticism is weakening the President’s influence around the globe.

The demise began with the perfidy and resignation of Richard Nixon and has continued downhill ever since; fueled in large part by the attacks from the party opposite the President. The power over domestic policy has gradually migrated to Congress. This is the fault of both Democrats and Republicans with the Independents standing by helplessly, unsure of which party to side with.

We, the voters have allowed this to happen by being too lazy or disinterested to refresh the Congress by exercising our Constitutional Rights. Congress now has the power to override anything the President wants to do from naming cabinet members and appointing judges to making tax policy and paying bills. Policies are determined by lobbyists and large donors with unfettered access to Congress. What we have come to is that anyone with enough money can run for President of the United States and whoever wins is looking less and less like he or she should be allowed or could be allowed to run the country. But all the folks on Capital Hill and in the White House are making plenty of money and holding on to their cushy jobs with fantastic benefits.

When Members of Congress or of the President’s Administration want to scare folks and make us think they are working for us, the grab the nearest “Talking Head” and make great media-fueling proclamations.The most vocal politicians often talk about “pending” legislation that will, for instance, allow an unemployed person to sue a company for 300 thousand dollars if a person already employed is chosen for a job. If you are a political junky and have the time to check, you will find that this bill has been sponsored by a single member of Congress; it has no co-sponsors and no chance of even coming up for a vote. Another example would be Rep. Chaka Fattah’s bill to establish a fee on transactions which would (he claims) eliminate the national debt and replace the income tax on individuals (H.R. 1125). Fattah and Nancy Pelosi are supposedly proposing a one percent transaction tax on every single financial transaction made every single hour of every single day. I have been receiving e-mails “out the yingyang” urging me to take action to fight this or that leftist proposal, when the truth is that the first bill would not even make it to committee, and H.R. 1125 will likely never make it out of Committee.

Congress has almost absolute power and is almost absolutely corrupt. It is time for Americans to vote out all of the incumbents and try for a fresh start. Remember this on the first Tuesday of November in 2012,

I’m baaaack! I hope you enjoyed Warren Ward’s document posted a couple of days ago. If not, please read it and share.

I have often received e-mail messages including a column by Charlie Reese  titled “545 vs. 300,000,000 People.” If you haven’t seen it, there is a link further down in this post that you can follow. I believe the most salient point made by Mr. Reese is that, “Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.” The most recent proof that Reese is on target has been the battles over the debt ceiling and the federal deficits.

The debt ceiling was created by Congress with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, giving the Department of the Treasury the responsibility of issuing government bonds to finance federal programs. However, to maintain the Constitutional power established by Article I Section 7 (All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives . . .) the act gave Congress the authority to set a statutory limit on the amount of debt the Treasury could accumulate.

In other words, with the imposition of the debt ceiling, Treasury cannot authorize borrowing to fund the government or pay the interest on existing debt without the approval of Congress. So if Congress approves spending that causes the Treasury to borrow to cover the spending, Treasury cannot pay back the loans or pay the interest on the loans if such actions will increase spending above the limit set by Congress. If that is not a Catch 22, I don’t know what is!

As far as deficits are concerned, there is plenty of blame to go around dating back as far as the end of World War I when the deficit was so high that there really was the possibility of default by the United States. Instead, the United States established policies that led to us becoming the world-wide symbol of financial security. Unfortunately, political promises and posturing have finally gotten the US to the point where our symbol may be in jeopardy. This month’s global trembling at the aftershocks of the world’s stock markets is a reflection of the fact that America has simply promised too much to too many for too long. Whether or not you agree with the Standard and Poors’ downgrade, the fact remains that continued borrowing and deficit spending really could lead to a default on US federal obligations. Fixing the problems requires Congress and the President to do much worse than “eat our peas” to quote President Obama. The Legislative and Executive branches need to swallow a harsh laxative to clean out all the waste, fraud, and abuse – better known as s*@t.

I’m not a financial wizard like my friend Warren Ward. Nor am I a political genius. But I have had decades of experience with balancing my budget. I know that when I get too deep in the s*@t, I have cut back on spending and find ways to increase my earnings. Notice that I said “earnings” not “revenue.” Earning is a verb that implies hard work while revenue is a noun and subject to manipulation. Painting a pretty face on revenues is like putting “lipstick on a pig” but it won’t pay the bills. If I have made financial promises to my family that I can’t keep, I have to bite the proverbial bullet, wipe off my lipstick, and face their disappointment when I tell them that I can’t do what I said I would. I cannot let their anger make me back down so that we can all feel good while the bills keep mounting.

Telling the American Public that the Federal Government cannot live up to all of its promises is not going to guarantee another term for any elected official. That’s why so few of these officials are prepared to stare down the truth and take action. Our politicians keep promising us that they will not allow the folks in their respective districts to suffer. And We, the People, deserve these spineless politicians if we keep sending them back year after year. We will all go down if we continue to allow ourselves to believe that the suffering should be borne by some other politician’s constituents while the country’s finances clog up like a blocked colon.

One thing that can be said about Tea Party politicians is that they are not afraid to speak truth to power. However, I am not convinced that these representatives have the right answers. Nevertheless, they should not back down because of tradition; but they should be willing to negotiate when presented with hard facts. Sometimes fresh new eyes can see truth hidden behind a sea of posturing when the facts are laid before them. And there are plenty of bona fide experts to consult. You can usually tell they are bona fide if you pay them instead of them paying you, á la lobbyists.

I would not presume to advise anyone regarding the path to American prosperity. But here are my observations of some of the intractable problems we face that we are paying our elected officials to resolve:

1. Eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare must be adjusted because people are living longer than they were in 1935 and 1966 when those programs were established.
2. The United States infrastructure is probably in worse shape than Iraq, but repairing it is no longer a matter of creating construction jobs for the poor and uneducated. The jobs of upgrading our infrastructure call for advanced training in engineering, computer designing, computer programming, physics, math, and science.
3. Our education system has not prepared current high school graduates and most college graduates for 21st Century technology.
4. There is so much history in Congress that members spend more time observing traditions than legislating. Fresh ideas are discarded because they don’t cater to historical precedents. Most politicians over the age of 60 are not technologically astute and should retire from office.
5. There loopholes, caveats, and temporary fixes in the current tax codes that make it impossible for businesses and individuals to appropriately plan for the future. It is just too complex. Here are some of the permanent taxes identified by Charles Reese (http://usa.goooh.com/2011/03/16/taxes/charley-reeses-final-column-why-we-have-taxes-and-deficits/) This is the link I mentioned earlier.

1. Accounts Receivable Tax
2. Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax
3. Cigarette Tax
4. Corporate Income Tax
5. Dog License Tax
6. Excise Taxes
7. Federal Income Tax
8. Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
9. Fishing License Tax
10. Food License Tax
11. Fuel Permit Tax
12. Gasoline Tax (around45 cents per gallon)
13. Gross Receipts Tax
14. Hunting License Tax
15. Inheritance Tax
16. Inventory Tax
17. IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
18. Liquor Tax
19. Luxury Taxes
20. Marriage License Tax
21. Medicare Tax
22. Personal Property Tax
23. Property Tax
24. Real Estate Tax
25. Service Charge Tax
26. Social Security Tax
27. Road Usage Tax
28. Recreational Vehicle Tax
29. Sales Tax
30. School Tax
31. State Income Tax
32. State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
33. Telephone Federal Excise Tax
34. Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
35. Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
36. Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
37. Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
38. Telephone State and Local Tax
39. Telephone Usage Charge Tax
40. Utility Taxes
41. Vehicle License Registration Tax
42. Vehicle Sales Tax
43. Watercraft Registration Tax
44. Well Permit Tax
45. Workers Compensation Tax

And, as if that’s not enough, as I understand it, there are over 450 exemptions, loopholes and temporary taxes in addition to all of those identified by Reese. There is a whole bunch of s*@t in the colon of the tax code that needs to be prepped for a colonoscopy.

This month while Congress and the President are in recess, they should be meeting with constituents. We, the Constituents, need to actively engage our representatives and make them understand that our country is more important than their political careers. We must be prepared to swallow the laxative and let it rip!

Due to some serious family issues, I have been offline for several weeks. As I was preparing to resume my political commentary, I read a newsletter published by a high school chum who is now a very successful investment adviser. His article provides an excellent review of the current facts regarding the President, Congress and the deficit debates.

I have posted Warren Ward’s below.  Later on, I will post my commentary and opinion. Enjoy.

Volume #7 Issue: # 9
Warren’s Wisdoms

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I generally stay away from political themes in my writing, if for no other reason than I don’t want to alienate half of my readers by taking a position which appeals to the other half. I’m going to make an exception today because I think the issues relating to the debt ceiling and the budget will have an impact on all of our lives beyond the planning and investing issues I usually address.

About twenty-five years ago, a Swedish friend told me that he admired the US because our politicians started with varying positions but always seemed able to work out compromises to keep the country moving forward. Back home, he said, all it took to get elected was to promise that the government would provide something else. His fellow citizens were well acclimated to the socialist approach of high taxes but almost everything – from health care to a college education – being provided by the government. Flash forward to 2011 and I suspect his opinion might have changed, as our politicians now seem more likely to take extreme positions to please a narrow band of the electorate, allowing them less room for compromise.

After passing a new debt ceiling on August 2nd, congress left Washington for its August recess and the president prepared for a bus trip across the country to do some business and raise some campaign funds. All 536 of them apparently believe that the debt problem has been resolved and they are free to return to their “business as usual” mode. I fear, however, that they are wrong and that it may be some time before business returns to usual. On August 4th, the market sold off broadly, giving up about 5% of its value and the New York Times reported an 82% disapproval rate for congress. On August 5th, S&P downgraded our government’s debt. Perhaps I’m not the only one who’s concerned.

According to the Department of the Treasury, the national debt has increased more than 55% in the past four years. In reflecting on changes in US politics since my friend expressed his admiration, I would say this is a bipartisan issue, with all sides wanting the government to be able to provide more but no side having a concrete plan to do so within the context of a balanced budget. Yearly government spending is about $3.6 trillion, or about $36,000 per US family and tax receipts are about $1.6 trillion, or about $16,000 per family. If you or I were faced with a discrepancy like that, I’m pretty sure we’d do whatever it took to bring things back into balance. Unfortunately, neither congress nor the president seems to consider this an urgent issue.

The title of today’s article, of course, comes from the 1966 Clint Eastwood movie. In it, he portrays a bounty hunter who conspires with (and against) most of the other characters in a very bloody story, riding away at the closing credits having abandoned his partner in crime once again. The title has entered our language as shorthand for a complicated situation like the one we face today. In that context, here’s how things appear to me.

The Good? Well, it is certainly good that we have a debt ceiling deal and that the US will continue to pay its bills. It’s also good that our treasury bonds continue to be the preferred investment for people and governments all over the world who are looking for safety.

The Bad? I don’t believe that the very remote connection our elected officials appear to have with the bulk of the population, and perhaps reality, bodes well for our future. And, of course, the specter of future wrangling and additional rating downgrades isn’t likely to be healthy for our country and its economy.

The Ugly? At best, economic news continues to be mixed. We are starting to hear questions about a double-dip recession and hundreds of thousands of us are suffering through being out of work. That said, corporate profits have been quite healthy, largely because most businesses have resisted hiring new employees. More than one Chief Financial Officer has been quoted as saying she’d never again be caught without a healthy supply of cash, yet it’s spending that cash which will put people back to work and eventually bring an end to the recession.

Does that make business the culprit? Opinions abound but I’d say it has more to do with government than business. We are one of only two countries in the developed world with a debt ceiling and a real decision about ours has not been made, simply postponed. Nina Olson, our national taxpayer advocate, reports that there have been 4,428 changes in the tax code over the past ten years including many which were made retroactively or were deliberately temporary. This sort of uncertainly makes life difficult for anyone whose job it is to make long term decisions. The recession will not end until people begin going back to work but it’s hard to imagine any rational business person making a long term investment in staff at a time when politicians can’t agree on a long term direction for the country.

I have heard politics described as “the art of the possible”, where various beliefs represent a starting point but compromise must be achieved for progress to occur. An increasingly fractious congress offers me little encouragement that our political situation will morph from ugly to pretty anytime in the near future.

Financial Advice as Individual as You Are ™

A REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISOR

Company and brand names mentioned within this article are all © their respective owners. The remainder of this message is © 2010, Warren Ward Associates.

www.warrenwardassociates.com

President Obama called for eliminating tax breaks for all oil and gas companies. He speculates that will raise about $44 billion over the next decade. However, most Republicans and Democrats representing oil-producing states complained that Obama’s proposal would raise taxes on many small and medium-sized businesses involved in oil production. And this would be a hardship why? Nevertheless, the oil and gas companies really don’t need to be concerned. It’s pretty clear that neither party will pass any legislation that interferes with oil company desires, so the President is jammed up – again. Money talks – Congress balks.

I don’t know about you, but I am furious! Why have we allowed ourselves to become captives of Big Oil? Why didn’t we listen when Jimmy Carter tried to get us to look for alternative resources and buy smaller, less-gas-consuming vehicles during the Oil Embargo of ’73? I will be the first to admit that I wasn’t into politics during that time so I didn’t pay much attention. But I was also driving a compact stick-shift automobile because I was a struggling single mom with two kids to raise.

Oil companies have been allowed to expense the cost of drilling and exploration since 1916, they have been allowed oil-depletion allowances since 1926, and they take advantage of a tax break that was initiated in 2004 to incentivize manufacturers to keep jobs in America. Somehow, I don’t think Congress was thinking of Big Oil when they created that last one. And it doesn’t seem to be working very well in any event. And then, to add insult to injury, Exxon CEO Tillerson taunted “If you want to repeal it, repeal it for everybody.” WOW!

Oil companies also get United States tax credits for taxes paid in foreign nations. Do the foreign nations give them subsidies to produce crude in their countries? I seriously doubt it. The oil giants claim they pay their fair share of taxes – including sales taxes, state and local property taxes, as well as federal income taxes. But I pay those same taxes and I don’t get a subsidy from anybody! Raise your hand if you do.

Maybe the tax code should be simplified; based on a sliding scale rather than a progressive scale: those making the least pay a much lower percentage, those making the most (benefiting the most from our society and economy) pay a higher percentage.

But while we wait for tax code changes that may never come, maybe we should just boycott gas stations every first Wednesday of every month for the rest of the year. I sure hope you all will join me in being anyplace but at a gas station beginning Wednesday, June 1^st and continuing until somebody feels our pain!

And in 2012, vote against any person who has had more than two terms in the Senate or the House of Representatives. President Obama can’t give us the change we can believe in until we give him the change he needs in Congress!

I am now only publishing blogs when a condensed version is selected for print in my local news organ, The Mobile Press Register. After a couple of months of having more than one letter printed each month, the editors have told me they will only publish one per month. They often ask me to resubmit the letters in following months. Since it is now taking me more time to develop dazzling opinions on political topics (LOL) I will limit my blogs to one per month as well. Why overdo it? Too many opinions uttered too often will make me a bore – don’t you think?

Anyway, here is my blog for April:
There are lessons we should learn from the Gulf Oil Disaster, the Japanese Nuclear Disaster, and coal mine disasters. Business owners decry regulations that increase their costs of producing the energy that makes everything work. But energy production is dangerous. People are seriously injured and die as the result of producing cheap energy for global consumption. History has taught us that industry leaders will cut corners, ignore safety, and take advantage of workers to increase their profits and shareholder value. Investigations of the aforementioned disasters have revealed the fact that history is repeated far into the present and beyond. So what have we learned?

In the Gulf Oil Disaster, eleven men died, most likely because BP cut corners on safety regulations. BP is alleged to have ignored warnings and tried to increase production in order to make more money from the Deep Water Horizon operation.  BP still made record profits, even taking into account the payments to the survivors and settlements with the Gulf Coast states and the federal government. Was the increase in shareholder value and profits worth the loss of those eleven lives?

Japan is a country located on major fault lines. Earthquakes are such a common occurrence that most buildings have built-in shock absorbers, and most people shrug and keep going. The massive flooding that frequently follows earthquakes is so common in Japan that the Japanese word for the event, “tsunami,” is the same in any other language. Yet the Japanese chose to construct nuclear power plants as a cheap source of energy in spite of the risks for earthquakes and tsunamis. The men who stayed behind and valiantly tried to prevent or minimize the danger of nuclear meltdown will probably die soon of radiation-related illness. The untold thousands of people who live near the nuclear plants and those who eat food and drink water from those areas will probably develop life-threatening illnesses. Radioactive iodine levels in seawater near the plant reached a new record – 4,385 times the legal limit. There is concern all along the Pacific Coast of North America that the US might be affected by radiation. Finally, Japanese leaders have reluctantly acknowledged that some precautions were ignored and safety measures overlooked at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Was the risk of radiation exposure worth the cost of human lives – and the global environment?

Twenty-five coal miners died in the Massey Energy coal mine in West Virginia. Thirty-three miners survived the Copiapó Mine accident in Chile, but at what cost to their health? Deaths caused by methane gas explosions, landslides, and cave-ins are understood and accepted risks of coal mining, but often known safety requirements are ignored by owners because of the added cost. Should mining operations be discontinued until the complete safety of workers can be guaranteed? How much do you want to bet that can ever happen?

Mining for coal, drilling for oil, and constructing nuclear energy plants are all dangerous. So too, to a lesser degree, are producing solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. Companies are prone to take safety risks in order to maximize profits. If you want to call it greed, you cannot let consumers off the hook. Consumers want to pay as little as possible to satisfy energy appetites. Shareholders want maximum profits. So maybe we need to accept the fact that lives will be lost and our environment will be damaged in order to satisfy our need for fuel.

Whatever type of energy we use comes with risks to human life in recovery and distribution. How much is a life worth that is lost in a coal mine or oil rig explosion? What is the environmental and human cost of a nuclear meltdown? How much should be paid for compensation and restoration?

These are harsh questions but industries must answer them every single day of operation. Energy corporations place a value on life when they decide how much to pay for workers who die or barely survive disasters when a risk becomes a reality. They determine what level of insurance they purchase to insure against risk and then proceed about their business. Insurance companies place a value on life when they deny or approve payment for treatment: or when they issue checks to pay the spouses, children, and relatives of the deceased.

The issue of insurance against loss is a vital part of the health care debate as well. Good or bad choices for nourishment, smoking, drinking, legal and illegal drug consumption, exercising or not; these choices affect the cost of health care. How much is a life worth, cut short by the wrong drug or poor nutrition? How much should tobacco companies have to pay for the ravages of disease caused by their product? How much should be spent on a person who is brain dead? Medical science can preserve life, but at what cost? And what is the life of a child worth when a medical accident occurs that limits function or causes death before adulthood?

The cost of health insurance for the average working American has more than doubled over the last decade, and purchasers feel that they are at the mercy of insurance companies. They feel that exorbitant rate hikes are unfair. Yet they do not want limits set on medical payments or death benefits. And we must not overlook the fact that we cringe at the possibility of allowing anyone to die just because he or she cannot pay for treatment. Hospital emergency rooms are overflowing with people who cannot afford to pay for even basic care. Some illnesses and injuries escalate to expensive treatment requirements because the sufferers cannot afford preventive treatment or early detection. How can we control the cost of Medicaid and Medicare without setting payment limits?

Doctors are required to purchase malpractice insurance to absorb some of the risks of mistakes. The cost of malpractice insurance is determined by the value the insurers place on life. The insurers allege that the premiums must be high because of the risks of lawsuits demanding huge payouts for death or injury. Many believe that tort reform is the answer, but how can you have tort reform without setting limits on claims?

The issues of health care reform, mining for cheaper fossil fuels, and use of nuclear energy have one thing in common; the need to place a value on human life. How can we establish the cost for insurance without placing a monetary value on human life or on the environment? As spiritual beings, we resist speaking of the value of a life, yet these decisions are made every day with very little debate. How much is too much to pay to save and preserve life? How much is it worth to save or restore the environment marred by energy extraction?

Regulations reduce risk to life, fortune, and the environment, but greatly increase costs. We can’t reform health care insurance, attain energy independence, or cure deficits until we answer one tough question: how much is a life worth?

Unfortunately, Congress is the body that will have to answer the tough question and make the tough decisions. If Congress is not ready to make tough choices, we will be stuck forever with deficits we can’t control.

I said all of that because, in a conclusion I came to about 15 years ago, the only way we can save jobs in the United States is by refusing to buy products made elsewhere unless there is no American alternative. Some things may cost more, but the sacrifice is worth it.

Neither stimulus money nor free trade agreements nor cutting taxes will guarantee job-creating demand in America. The only thing that can create jobs is consumer demand. We the people must create the demand that will create jobs in America. We must do what politicians cannot ask: make a conscious effort to buy goods made in the USA. Whether you are employed, unemployed, under employed or retired, you can make a difference by purchasing goods made in the USA. If everyone took the time to read the labels when you shop for everyday items and purchase items made in the USA as often as possible, we will create demand.

Preserve brand dental products, Genie House and Northeast Lantern lighting fixtures, New Balance and Okabashi shoes, Nordic Ware kitchen products, and Cutco cutlery are examples of products that are made in the USA. Simple Green cleaning products are made in the USA and are environmentally safe. Bear & Son cutlery and zkano (pronounced zah-kah-no) socks are made in Alabama. And if you don’t mind shopping at your local Dollar General, you can purchase Everyday Value brand products that are made in Cleveland, OH. Everyday Value products compete equitably with GE light bulbs and Bounce fabric softener for example, and cost less.

In ABC’s report, David Muir reported that if every American increased the purchase of products made in the USA by one percent, we could create 200,000 jobs! That averages out to about 18 cents per day or 64 dollars per year – and that is without sacrificing quality.

Here’s what we need to do. Whenever we shop, look at the product label for the “Made in USA” sticker. Only buy the foreign product if there is no other choice. You can also visit this website for a listing of almost every product made in America: http://www.americansworking.com/index.html

Even small purchases add up if everyone is doing it. The jobs we save could be yours or your neighbors’.

Next, Members who chaired committees took to the microphones to pledge to cut their budgets and to reduce their Members Representational Allowance (MRA) by five percent. One Member, Incoming House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, in a poker move, saw the five and raised his committee’s cut to nine percent of last year’s budget! Numerous Members spoke in support of the cuts, stating that it was time for Congress to take actions that the American people have had to take as the economy weakened to near depression. Even though the cuts would only save taxpayers an undramatic, underwhelming $35 million in a year, they all emphasized the fact that Congress could not continue spending as usual while telling the American people that we need to be concerned about the $14 trillion debt and whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.

By a vote of 399 yeas to 10 nays, Members voted to suspend the rules and allow the cuts to pass without debate. And just like that -the measure to cut the House Operating Budget by five-percent for all committees, leadership offices and the MRA was passed! I can only speculate as to why there were any nay votes, so I will not presume to accuse them of wanting to hold on to the $1.5 million MRA. You may have seen, in one of my previous blogs that I complained about the practice of keeping all unspent funds in personal accounts that built up steadily over the years. I would be truly ecstatic if the Members agreed to return unspent funds back to the federal deficit, but baby steps, okay? I can’t wait to see what happens when that automatic salary increase for all 535 members of Congress comes up this year.

But it is a little bit scary that Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Pete Sessions (R- TX) missed their swearing-in ceremony on the House floor. Kind of ironic since they participated in the reading of the Constitution. Maybe they also missed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s class on the Constitution, primarily for freshmen – which they were not. They subsequently cast six votes each that House Republicans later had to nullify. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but I seriously question their judgment since they were attending non-fundraising (?) activities elsewhere when the ceremony was taking place. I’m glad somebody caught that gaffe before too many bills had come up to vote – especially when the next vote will involve repealing health insurance reform. (I refuse to call it health care reform because it does nothing to address health care.)

I later tuned in to POTUS, a station on satellite radio, to hear Secretary Robert Gates enumerate budget cuts of $78 billion over five years in wasteful Pentagon spending; without threatening national defense. (I know, I know, I have just too much time on my hands!) Secretary Gates made similar budget slashing proposals during the previous Administration, but the old warmonger, Dick Cheney, famously said that “deficits don’t matter,” so defense spending continued unchecked. There were just too many civilian government jobs threatened in home districts to allow such blaspheme.

And while I’m on the subject of budget cuts and the debt ceiling and the like, am I the only one who remembers that President Bush used emergency funding to perpetrate the multi-billion dollar war in Iraq and the tiny bit less expensive war in Afghanistan? In fact, when Lawrence B. Lindsey, Director of the National Economic Council (2001–2002), told the Administration that the war in Iraq could cost more than $100 billion, he was fired! Maybe President Bush fired him because his estimate was too low, the war has cost more than $3 trillion so far, but I kind of doubt it. Because President Obama is including the costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan in his budget, it only seems like he is adding trillions more in spending than President Bush.

Albeit, I am not giving the “new” Republicans a free pass, but I believe they mean well by trying to find ways to significantly reduce the size of the government by cutting entitlement spending. But the real growth is fueled by adding more and more people to government payrolls, fueling the always-starving bureaucracy of agencies created to administer government programs, many of which are redundant. It will be painful to cut government employees, because that will increase unemployment. But if they don’t, America can risk falling into the trap of Cuban-style Socialism. Around ninety percent of employees in Cuba worked for the government so it became impossible for the remaining ten percent to pay enough taxes to keep them working; hence layoffs that fueled massive unemployment last year. Interestingly, many of the laid-off workers began using entrepreneurial ventures to feed their families.

Since the formation of our nation, our chosen lawmakers have tried to work out kinks in the health of the country by proffering amendments to the Constitution and bills that reaffirm America’s global recognition as the best governed nation in the civilized world. We have formed the best combination of free market and laissez faire economy with the best of socialist ideals to provide a safety net for the poorest and weakest of our citizens. The framers of the Constitution cautioned that too much freedom in the market would leave the people at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt actors, and they were dead on. Tinkering with regulations, modifications, new laws, and repeal of the worst legislation (i.e. Prohibition), we sometimes make mistakes that extract disastrous consequences (i.e. repeal of Glass-Steagall), but Administrations have been right more often than wrong.

Historical data seem to suggest that the best combinations for the three branches of government are: a primarily Democratic Executive Branch, a mostly Republican Legislative Branch, and a diverse Judiciary. The most recent example is the second term of the Clinton Administration which left a surplus for the next administration. The branches during President Bush’s terms were primarily Republican, but you really couldn’t split the difference between most of the Democrats and Republicans with a super sharp ceramic knife. Too many members of Congress had been allowed to overstay their effectiveness and grew more concerned with their jobs than ours.

I don’t agree with many of the stances of the more radical Tea Parties, but I love what their introduction has added to the discourse. As Speaker Boehner said, (paraphrasing here) the Members of the House of Representatives actually represent the diverse views of the American people and all are entitled to a voice. This is true whether or not you agree with what they say. But let’s hope that the current Administration and the 112th Congress will follow through on all of the measures that cut federal waste of taxpayer dollars before there are no more taxpayers left to fill the trough. (Get it; pigs at the trough, pork barrel amendments, etc.?)

Every news anchor was scrambling to get a politician to appear for a grilling. The politicians were struggling to be politically correct; saying that the uncivil discourse is demonstrated on “both sides of the aisle.” But the pundits were struggling to form questions that would cause one side or the other to point fingers so that they would have tomorrow’s biggest headline.

In truth, we have always had heated rhetoric in the general public throughout the history of our great nation. All of this is true and also extremely wrong.

What is different in the 21st Century is that we have a 24/7 news cycle, a ubiquitous Internet, and the decline of print media as the main source of information. In order to raise ratings and make money all sources target the lowest human common denominator – the negative spirit. Reporters don’t have time to dig for the truth. Instead they rush to report the sensational. Good news and pleasant stories are nice, but vitriol, blood, and guns get attention.

As soon as media outlets learned of the horrible shootings, the public was presented with a dizzying array of reports of death and destruction, including reports that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot dead. The public has a right to know what is happening in the world, but is it too much to ask that media outlets, especially the “professionals,” take a deep breath and get it right before they get it out?

While free speech is the right of all Americans, politicians must curb theirs for the sake of our democracy. This is a responsibility that is more necessary now than at any time in the past.

Public figures should not hurl hateful adjectives into the headlines without realizing that there are plenty of deranged citizens willing to take terrible actions to carry out their imagined orders. They can start with changing the name of the bill that will be put before the House of Representatives from “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” to something less incendiary. They need to cease cute twists of phrase that make it seem as if the American way of life is under threat from either Democrats or Republicans. Both parties are wrong sometimes and correct at others, the left is not always right and the right is not always wrong, but all want to preserve the American style of democracy.

One of the things lawmakers should have learned from reading the Constitution in the opening session of the 112th Congress is that the forefathers provided for amendments because they knew that human nature is fallible. As the decades rolled by, we made the conscious decision as a country that, in order to remain strong and prosperous, we needed to incorporate the best of the major economic ideologies into our own: capitalism, socialism, and communism. All of one with none of others would destroy the basis of our representational government.

Even as we mourn the loss of every life lost and every injury sustained on January 8th, as we pray for the families of those murdered and for the swift recovery of those injured, we need to remember that words have consequences and words made public can have devastating consequences. Those who record and report the spoken words need to proceed with care because of the heavy responsibility of 21st Century communication. But our elected politician’s must bear a heavier responsibility than the media. In the halls of Congress, vitriolic language must be replaced with more dignified language simply because the 21st Century media can spread it like a wildfire in dry timber.

The Congress of the United States is irretrievably broken. It cannot be fixed by re-electing anyone who has served more than two terms. Those who have served longer than two terms were instrumental in orchestrating the disastrous meltdown that has ruined our economy. Now, in order to save their ill-deserved jobs, they are trying to show us, the voters, which politicians are the biggest crooks. I am feed up with the “gotcha” politics played by Democrats and Republicans. It is one thing for the pundits and talking heads that need to generate listeners and viewers to play this game; they have to make money somehow. But our Congressional representatives need to focus on what is best for America. All of this election year posturing for the media is solid proof that Congress is broken beyond repair.

The BP Disaster has created enough blame and finger-pointing to go around. However, the entity most responsible for this tragic saga is our broken Congress. Congress; specifically the House of Representatives, had the power to launch an investigation into the Materials Management Service (MMS) as soon as the scandals in connection with the oil industry were revealed. In point of fact, the MMS was not created by Executive order or legislation. MMS was created by James Watt who was Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan. But Watt, the original “drill baby drill” proponent was blatantly anti-environment. In fact the sole purpose for which he created MMS was to expedite resource extraction and to collect oil development revenues; safety and protecting the environment were definitely not in his plan. An agency created by secretarial edict can always fly under the radar unless something specific attracts attention. Otherwise, there exists a real possibility of over-regulation for the purpose of posturing by both the left and the right. Nevertheless, that does not excuse the members of the House and Senate who valued industry lobbyists’ gifts more than the safety record of the oil companies.

Even if you accept that no one could have predicted the BP disaster given the length of time between accidents resulting in loss of life, Congress could have launched an investigation into BP within days after horrible explosion and fire. The commission currently investigating the BP disaster is costing taxpayers $2 million and growing. The expense is not born by BP; it is being covered with taxpayer dollars. But wouldn’t this money have been better spent and more beneficial if it had preceded the disaster? I’m sure the family members of the eleven men killed when the Deepwater Horizons rig exploded would think so.

Republicans members of Congress accuse the Obama Administration of being heavy-handed with private industry. But we have seen the destruction wrought by relaxing regulations on the oil, financial, auto, and health industries. And does anybody really believe that deregulation helped the airlines and telecommunications industries? We are now suffering with the cutbacks in service that were made necessary by cost-cutting to improve the bottom line.

We all agree that our national deficit is too high and our federal and state governments are too big. We also see that the current federal, state, and local administrations don’t have a firm grasp on how to fix the deficits. Politicians look everywhere but internally for ways to raise funds and cut costs. They create commissions, task forces, and studies to determine how to solve the problems. And then, without any apparent shame, fail to address the issues and solutions presented because the solutions require tough measures and the politicians don’t want to lose their jobs. However, we the public, must bear our share of blame because we keep re-electing the same people term after term. Now, politics is all they know and they are afraid to let go of the lifestyles created by money, prestige, and – wait for it – LOBBYISTS .

A good friend and fellow conservative commented that our ideologies are “watered down” compared with the greatest generation. We want the government to cut spending everywhere except for the programs that benefit us. We want the government to make us whole after every natural disaster, to protect our borders and fight wars; we want to consume gas and energy at minimum cost, to travel safely by air, rail, water, or land cheaply, and to purchase and consume cheap food and water without fear of contamination. If we cannot afford insurance, we want the government to care for us if we get sick or injured because we don’t want hospitals to turn away people who cannot afford to pay. All of this must be funded because cutting these costs will cost lives and jobs.

For instance, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants to cut military spending by canceling the manufacture of the B-17 because it is out-of-date and far too expensive. Nevertheless, cutting the program will cost jobs in the home states of two Senators and several members of the House. Therefore, rather than show real concern for the huge deficits, the affected politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, are fighting and making deals to continue unneeded spending.

We all want to keep government programs that support education and care for children with such disabilities as autism, Downs Syndrome, dwarfism (achondroplasia), excessive growth disorder (acromegaly), and assorted behavioral issues. And most of us feel that free public education benefits the country as a whole. Wouldn’t it be nice to have lobbyist’s dollars spent for such programs rather than lining the pockets of career politicians?

Some cities want to institute charges for services provided at the scene of accidents for non-residents. For instance, use of the Jaws of Life, clearing accident scene for traffic, etc. might be billed to reimburse the city. Many states, at the urging of citizens, are banning such laws, but that means local taxpayers will bear the burden of costs. It also means that insurance premiums everywhere will be raised to cover the possibility of an insured having an accident in one of the municipalities that has enacted these laws. Did any of our career politicians consider issues such as these when they were crafting health care reform? We must have politicians who will come up with valid solutions to address these very real concerns of the states and the American people.

The Republicans of Lincoln and the Democrats of Kennedy no longer exist. All we have are squabbling members of Congress who will say anything to get elected and collect all the money they can to keep them in office. Right-leaning Republicans demand laissez faire even though we have learned what happens with unbridled greed unrestrained by regulation. Our economic meltdown has shown us the cost of complete deregulation. Left-leaning Democrats are demanding more regulation and oversight. But every new regulation requires more people to monitor it which, in turn, will require more government employees and an exponential growth of the government payroll.

We, ordinary citizens, must also be mindful of the fact that every time we complain about a program cut that affects us we are giving politicians the authority to add to the size and cost of government. We need to remember that maintaining and regulating all of the above is expensive, so we must be fair about demanding programs that benefit a small segment of the population at the expense of the overall cost of government.

If Congress was working with the President and for the American people instead of trying to score points and get re-elected, the sheer magnitude of the BP Disaster might have been mitigated by quicker response by all agencies involved. If Congress had started the investigation into MMS last year, the severe breaches in safety and environmental regulations would have been discovered and perhaps addressed before the mess. Do you really think that drilling would have been continued without at least a short moratorium if the horrors revealed by the current investigations were known last year?

I want a Congress that can streamline regulation to make it more effective. Technology provides new options that were not available even twenty years ago. However the current Congress is over-populated with old men and women who are still trying to catch up with 20th Century technology that is obsolete in this, the 21st Century. I’m fed up with Congressmen who were fairly young when first elected and plan to die in office. The easy life-style and excellent health care can keep these old geezers going and their hearts ticking while their brains are slumbering. These old guys in Congress can do real harm with business-as-usual.

We need to impose term limits on the entire Congress, both the House of Representatives and the one-third of the Senate every two years. We certainly can’t get any worse than the current gridlock! Since the Supreme Court ruled out term limits we, the people, must impose term limits with our votes!

I apologize to you in advance because I’m going to deliver my version of a sermon here. I am going to get preachy. If you have a viscerally negative gut reaction to sermons and preaching, don’t proceed. I don’t want to cause you abdominal pain and diarrhea.

First, I want to get this out in the open: racism exists within every classification of race in the 2010 Census. And unless and until racial classifications are removed from the Census forms, racism will continue to be supported. Slicing, dicing and continuously adding racial categories only serve to codify racism and highlight divisions. But that’s a subject for another blog, so let me just stick to the point of this one.

We just need to be honest about the fact that there will always be those who feel that their race is superior to another and can prove it. That’s because anyone can find statistics to support any belief he or she chooses to champion. Religious hypocrites can even cite passages in the Bible that support their views. The impact of racism in the history of America is egregious but we have to start somewhere if it will ever be irrelevant.

I am aware of all of the studies that prove the negative impact of racial discrimination, but that becomes yesterday’s news with each new day. The real issue is prejudice. It is prejudice (as in pre – judge) that allows us to accept what we hear or read in the media as the gospel truth. It is prejudice (as in pre – judge) that allows us to believe that every person holds a monolithic view because he or she is a member of a particular race. It is prejudice for anyone to assume the right to intimidate anyone else because of racial differences.

The fact is, the 24/7 news cycle requires controversy and bombshell revelations to make money. They trot out the old standbys like Rev. Jesse Jackson, who are still fighting the civil wars of the 20th Century when they were in their heydays. And before you can blink, the conservative and right-wing media outlets start complaining about reverse racism and citing examples of black people making racist remarks as if there really is a reason to fear that minorities will rise up and storm the temples. Then left-wing and liberal media outlets start dredging up all of the past injustices to try to stir up old wounds and past anger. And the war wages on while real solutions to real problems evade us. (I can just hear some of your minds screaming as you read this; “How in the hell can you trivialize issues of race?”)

The hot racial topic dominating the July news cycle involved the Tea Party Movement, the NAACP and Mrs. Shirley Sherrod. Based upon her life experiences, Mrs. Sherrod has more reason to hate the white race than anyone because she lost her father to racial hatred. Not only was her father murdered by a white farmer (who was not indicted for the murder), her family lost their farm because of discrimination perpetrated by the very agency for which she was currently working, the USDA. Yet she rose above her circumstances and pain to help both white and black farmers keep their land. The farmer that she was talking about in the video, Roger Spooner, contacted CNN to tell the rest of the story.

What actually happened was that Ms. Sherrod learned that poor white farmers were treated just as badly by white people as black farmers. When she realized that classism was a bigger issue than racism, she went beyond what any bureaucrat would have done to save the farm for Mr. Spooner. She stuck with the Spooners and she personally walked them step-by-step through the tangled web of bureaucracy and rejection until they finally won their battle. Now she has lost her job because of a crudely edited video. The Spooners were shocked to see and hear what has been done to a woman they believe is a hero.

It turns out that Andrew Breitbart, a white conservative blogger, had doctored the video make it appear that there was cheering and clapping in a cut and spliced piece of Mrs. Sherrod’s complete story and then aired the inflammatory clip on line to suit his purposes. Breitbart claimed that he wanted to prove that the NAACP and African-Americans are racist. His stunt would not have had such an impact if we simply acknowledged the truth and moved on: we are all racist to some degree. So what?

What is even more disturbing is that Tom Vilsack, the current head of USDA, made the decision to fire her because he learned that Glenn Beck was going to air the edited video. Mr. Vilsack never even attempted to learn Ms. Sherrod’s side of the story. Ms. Sherrod was not even working for the government when the incident occurred. In other words, Mr. Vilsack was prejudiced; he made a pre-judgment because he saw a black woman on his staff saying she did not help a white farmer as much as she could have. Mr. Vilsack knew nothing about Mrs. Sherrod’s personal life and probably could not have picked her out in a staff meeting until that crudely doctored video surfaced.

Ironically, when Glenn Beck actually did air the video, he used it as proof that the White House and the NAACP were wrong for doing what the earlier FOX News anchors (especially Megan Kelly and Bill O’Reilly) were demanding – that Ms. Sherrod be fired! He amazingly continued to twist the incident into a racist brouhaha by bringing up Jeremiah Wright and Henry Louis Gates! He claims that the White House was trying to make him (Glenn Beck) the bully! And that the current administration does not support due process! Incredibly, he voiced his opinion that the White House should have promoted Mrs. Sherrod because she bought into class warfare. Beck’s position is that Obama hates white people and encourages class warfare.

Could Mr. Vilsack’s decision have been linked to the fact that the USDA finally settled the case regarding her family’s farm for a significant sum of money? Probably not. Could his decision have been considered racist? Not really. Could this incident represent institutional racism? Possibly. What was most definitely at work was prejudice. The prejudice that has damaged Shirley Sherrod’s reputation should be a lesson to us all.

This whole incident was completely ignorant, utterly unnecessary, and was ripe for use by the sensationalist media. We should not blame YouTube videos, the blogosphere, or any of the cable news channels for doing what they do best in order to get your attention. And when a racist incident catches fire because of the attention cable networks and the Internet generate, regular network and print media pick up the pace. What we must learn to do is to reject the prejudice that allows us to accept, without question, incendiary reports and comments. Once the media grabs our attention, it is incumbent upon all of us to demand the full investigation that was once a hallmark of journalism. It is not racism that is the problem, the problem is prejudice.

It is prejudice that causes us to look at events through the prism of our history. Most white people and most black people in America share the same history but not the same view of historical events. In my always humble opinion, our collective views will never merge. No matter how hard we try, we cannot alter the prism of history. Nor can we rewrite it – it is HISTORY!

We have to put a stake in the ground right here and right now and stop looking back or we will not be able to move forward. If we continue to allow the media race-baiting to stir up old fears and anger, racism will keep us divided. We have to resist the urge to jump at every exhibit of racist behavior. We need to understand that there is more to the reaction and try to look behind the incident and see the person. We still might not like the person behind the incident, but there is a chance that we will – and that’s where we need to focus. In the words of Rodney King; “Can’t we all just get along?”