Presidential discretion

Prosecutorial discretion: A definition and discussion

Perils of selective prosecution

The president of the United States, in the context of enforcing various laws passed by Congress and rules and regulations (with the force of law) written by various regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, has cited “prosecutorial discretion” as the source of his power to basically say: Yes, that is the law, but I don’t like it so I am going to ignore the law and I am going to tell my agents in the executive branch not to enforce it.”

Question: Does prosecutorial discretion really give the president the right to ignore the law?

Where is the justice if the law is selectively enforced? Is it not more fair if the law is applied equally to all citizens, especially the same law?

The problems I have with President Barack Obama’s declaration that segments of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare or the ACA) will not be enforced because his allies and administration failed to anticipate a host of unintended consequences (well, we are being generous here and assuming they are unintended) that have accompanied the rollout of the President’s signature legislature are legion.

I won’t go into the convoluted definitions and such that make it constitutional, or the cynical calculations that have gone into exempting this class or that group from the dictates of the Congressional legislation that was passed on a strictly party-line vote (i.e. no attempt at consensus). I am just dealing with the perception that this administration likes to favor one political faction over another. In other words, it is all about votes and maintaining political power for a favored few. That is wrong. The government should be bound to apply the law. The president is not king, nor an elected dictator like Caesar.

I know that is an idealistic view for me to take, but unfortunately, even the evil Wikipedia points out that selective prosecutions based on selective prosecutorial discretion is subject to unbelievable abuse.

Wikidpedia on Selective Discretion

“Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to select those against whom they want to enforce the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Selective enforcement in practice

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.”

Yes, folks, this violates the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 76h, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Now, all you legal beagles out there can argue the picayune minutia of the ins and outs of  its application, but the concept of equal protection and equality before the law is the bedrock of the American concept of the “rule of law.” Without the protection of the rule of law, then what are we left with?

The President, it seems – whether it is enforcement of immigration law, voter intimidation, or his prized Obamacare law – seems to be saying: It doesn’t matter what the law says. It is what I say that matters.

Unfortunately, in many respects, he is correct. He is the one who is charged with enforcing the law, and his minions have a broad discretion as to how to go about it.

Now, I may not like it. You may not like it. A lot of people may not like it. However, it still may be within his power as the chief enforcer of the provisions of the Constitution, the statutory laws passed by Congress and all the administrative rules and regulations (i.e. laws) put in place by all the various governmental agencies to enforce vague laws passed by Congress, to decide how aggressive he will tell the agents of the government to enforce said legal issues.

In the case of Obamacare, he sounds like the fan of a losing sports team: Wait until next year to see anything done.

Deferring enforcement of unpopular laws, and vowing to veto attempts to repeal said laws, rules and regulations, is a way to try to game the system. I think that is wrong. Congress wrote the mess, it needs to correct it. And it can start by repealing the rules and regulations enacted by the regulatory agencies to enforce it.

Unfortunately, the incompetence of this administration all too often is overwhelmed by the incompetence and ineptitude of the loyal opposition. Maybe that is an expression of how truly our house is divided.

For America is a house divided, these days. There are those who see government as the solution and those who see the government as the problem … and never the twain shall meet.

IF one is to take election results at their face value then the divide is almost straight down the middle, give or take 2 or 3 percent on either side. That is why the White House was gained by a slim majority, the Senate is controlled by one party by a majority that can’t steamroll the opposition and the House is controlled by the loyal (or disloyal, depending on how partisan you want to be) opposition.

What the American people seem to be hungering for are consensus solutions to the problems that we are facing. Unfortunately, that consensus is eluding us because those who are in the position to do so have decided that it is not in their interest to compromise. Pox on all their houses.

Consensus maybe needed but the basis of our republic, our union, is that the rule of law shall prevail and that the citizen can expect that it will be enforced without preference or prejudice. It rarely is, but that is the standard we should demand.

This administration, however, apparently seems to be intent on casting away even the fig leaves used by its immediate predecessor, in its bid to establish an imperial presidency that ignores the rule of law in favor of its own interpretations.

Please, will someone stand up and start yelling that the emperor has no clothes on? Will someone inside the beltway at least try to invoke the checks and balances so carefully weighed by those disparate dead white men of property who designed the American constitutional system? It really is an incredible piece of work that we seem to to want to flush away in fit of 21st Century hubris.

Nuff said … I through ranting now (for the moment)

Politics should stop being politics

Obama: Congress should stop bickering

The President thinks that the Republicans and Democrats should stop fighting and arguing over how the federal government spends its money. They should stop “manufacturing” crises and stop being “out of touch” with the American people.

TIME OUT!

Mr. President, what world are you living on, because it sure ain’t the same one the rest of America lives on.

Sorry, but the Republicans and the Democrats pretty much are doing what they are supposed to do: Represent the interests of the people who sent them there. Now that does not mean everybody in their district or state, but the people who voted and supported them. That, Mr. President, is how a representative democracy works. You don’t like that, then move to a different universe.

I know that I am a voice in the wilderness here, but, people, we have to understand that the US does not speak with one voice. It never has and it never will. Currently there are more that 310 million of us, each with our own mind and our own view of how things ought to be. Neither of the major political parties represents the view of the majority of Americans – especially on every issue. That is what makes politics politics.

Mr. President, you want Congress to pass a budget? Then call Harry Reid over in the Senate and tell him to pass the next budget bill that comes over from the House as is. Don’t play around with it, just pass it. And then you sign it. But, you and I know that isn’t going to happen.

And it hasn’t happened since the Republicans became the majority in the House. Every year, since 2009, the House dutifully passes the various and sundry authorizations and appropriations bills (like some 26 of them each year) and every year during that time the Senate has piddled and diddle and not one thing has it resolved. Why? Because the Democrats won’t accept what the Republicans have passed.

Every year, the Congress ends up passing a “continuing resolution” that, I guess, now extends all the way back to 2009 (it actually doesn’t but that is a different story). As Pappy used to say: That is one heck (he WAS a gentleman after all) of a way to run a railroad.

All continuing resolutions do is kick the can down the road to be dealt with again whenever it runs out.

So, the problem has not been in the House. It has been doing its job all along. And the problem is not with the Senate Republicans; they are just standing by what their House brethren have sent over. No, the problem lies on the other side of the aisle.

Now, I will guarantee you that you will not see it reported that way because it does not fit the establishment narrative of the problem.

I saw this back in 1994 when the GOP first took the House after being the minority party for more than 40 years. The establishment media was in a quandary. Over 40 years the reporters and pundits had established where they could go to get information and where the levers of power were. In an election, all that was washed away and it upset them. No longer could they go to the “usual suspects” and get the low-down on what was going on the backrooms and the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill. For a reporter who has spent years developing news source relationships, that is a very disconcerting feeling.

The new folks in power on the Hill, a bit chary of those who had developed such deep relations with their opponents, were less than welcoming to the established reporter and pundit class. So the feeling became mutual and the media bias grew to a deeper chasm.

Now, Mr. President, I know that neither you, nor any of your staff, or anyone else of note or power will read my ramblings (well, maybe someone at the NSA who is bored to death might), but please quit blaming others for your own lack of leadership.

The budgetary train wreck, the health care train wreck, the foreign policy train wreck, they are all your responsibility. Don’t slough them off on your minions. Don’t ask your co-equals in government (the ones who are to set the polices and priorities that you are to execute with the resources they give you) to do things that you apparently are unwilling to do.

Compromise is a two-way street and Congress is a co-equal with the Presidency (as is the Supreme Court). That is how the American republic was designed and how it is supposed to work. (Not by executive order and writ, as you just demonstrated with the setting up of new panels, etc., to sidestep the role of the uncooperative Congress – AND that is yet another rambling I will not digress into)

Nuff Said. Have a nice day. 

More rambling thoughts

Go win an election – Obama

President Obama sometimes gives the impression that as president, he is the only one who counts.  Sorry, the US government doesn’t work that way.

Gloating over the capitulation of his opponents in Congress on the issues of  what form of government funding was to be passed and how much debt the federal government would be allowed to take on, he told the losers they “needed to win an election.” The implication here, I suppose, is that the only election that counts is the presidential one. I guess if you think that the government should answer only to the president and be at his beck and call, that would be true but it is not what a democratic federal republic is all about.

You see, Mister President, your opponents on policy issues did win 232 elections in 2012 (out of 435 for seats in the House of Representatives), which means they hold a majority there. Now, if the US was a parliamentary system, it would mean that you would not be the elected leader of the United States … but that is a never-mind.

The point being is that not all power is supposed to reside in the White House and those people who control the other House were doing, essentially, what the people who voted them into office asked them to do.

No, Mister President (and your allies across the aisle in the House and across the hall in the Senate where they have control), that does not mean that those people who oppose you are extremists – despite being repeatedly labeled as such, nor racists – another favorite label being thrown around, nor hostage takers or terrorists or anarchists or arsonists or bombers. Despite your rhetoric to that effect, these people are not out to destroy the government, any more than one would hope you are. These merely are people who have a profound difference of opinion and world view than yours.

To me, it is tragic to see so many news stories and political pundits saying that the shutdown (such as it was) and the resistance to raising the debt ceiling was all the fault of the conservative Republicans and their Tea Party allies.

The shutdown did not have to happen and all the “painful” closures were not necessary. It doesn’t take much critical thinking to realize that the needed legislation had been passed by the House of Representatives but was blocked from passage by the presidential party loyalists in the Senate. It was those Senators who were holding the government hostage until they got what they wanted, not the other way around. Unfortunately, that was not nor will it be the way it was reported in the majority of the news dissemination outlets in the United States.

And now they are gloating over their victory and telling their opponents don’t ever oppose us again.

It is even more distressing to see liberal/progressive web sites like the Huffington Post headlining their page with demands that the loyal opposition bow down in obeisance to the righteousness of the progressives demands. What was it Churchill said about in victory? Something about magnanimity?

I read somewhere about how progressives are looking to create a country where it is the elite (themselves) who will perpetually be in power and those beneath them will just accept the justness of such an arrangement.

As for the other issue at the bar in the shutdown – Obamacare, or as it officially is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that it was designed to fail and that has been the intention of its “supporters” all along. I know that is being dreadfully cynical of me, but given the absolute disastrous train wreck the rollout of the “health insurance exchanges” this month, it is hard to believe that even our government and its contractors could be that incredibly incompetent. Those who know me know that I am loath to attribute to conspiracy anything that can be explained by mere incompetence, but this really has been pushing the envelope on that viewpoint.

I mean, nobody read the bill (supposedly) before it was passed and since then it seems that waivers and exceptions to its application have been the rule rather than the other way.

You see, here I tend to agree with the people who have been denigrated as Tea-baggers: I am of the opinion that the law, whatever it is, should be applied without regard to wealth, social status, gender, race, creed, religion, color, parentage or any of the plethora of other things that we use to divide us. In fact, I have feared the Balkanization of the United States for many years.

The law, in my humble opinion, should apply to all or to none at all. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the Obamacare law and its mind-boggling pages of regulations. To me, this is an egregious error, but I guess I am one of those bomb-throwers.

The funny thing to me is that, outside a few notable exceptions, I have met very few health care professionals who are in favor of Obamacare … actually most of them have expressed very negative views about the “reforms”.

As I discussed with one recently, the problem we have in the United States is not with our health care delivery system. It, in fact, is in really good shape, considering all the challenges it faces. Rather, the problem lies in how we are going to ration that delivery because it must be rationed. We have no other choice. Health care is a finite resource. We have only so many doctors, nurses, health care technicians and right on down to the porters and maids (not to mention the clerks and accountants in the billing offices).

To me the problem always has been how do you pay for all of that and who gets to decide who gets what? I am of the opinion that is not the in the purview of the US federal government, but since the bulk of the opinion makers in the US are now allied with national news dissemination organizations, all problems are nationalized (even if national solutions rarely are able to solve all problems).

I mean what would all the Bill O’Reillys, Anderson Coopers, Rachel Maddows, etc., do if they had to address merely local issues (even if they had some national implications) in all the various markets around the nation. They would not be able to cope.

I cite as a for-instance, an issue brewing in southern Maine over the use of the port facilities in South Portland to export Canadian oil. Currently, the facilities are used to pump oil from tankers from other places to Canada to feed its needs for heat, energy and transportation. The people who operate the pipeline, apparently plan to use the same facilities to take Canadian oil and export it to markets elsewhere in the world.

There are those around here are extremely put out that such a plan would be put forth at all. Of course, these people would dearly love to see the Port of Portland closed down, or so I overheard one supporter of a ballot initiative  to place such strict restrictions on the oil facilities that it would force them to close, tell another person today. They said something to the effect that so what if the 10 people working at the terminal were put out of work.

That would not be my point, however. Mine would say something about why should we in Portland be wanting to hurt so many Canadians?

However, I also know that this is not just about oil, but “tar sand” oil which those whose minds are focused on “protecting” the environment are so adamantly opposed to being developed. It doesn’t matter that the Canadians in Alberta are getting a good deal out of selling the oil, we just can’t have that happen, I guess.

And last but not least … I think the internet is a good thing. I think that letting people “blog” their thoughts and views is a good thing.

You see, apparently unlike the President of the United States, I think that blogging is of benefit and the more ideas, thoughts, points of view, etc., competing in the free market of politics the better … and may the better ideas float to the top.

Apparently, President Obama doesn’t agree and thinks that “bloggers” have too much influence. Well, I guess if your goal is to control the flow of information to the vast unwashed masses out there (note all the lengths the current administration has gone to combat leaks to reporters and the news media – which is predominately friendly to the Obama government), then the unrestrained freedom of social media and blogging would be more than disconcerting.

Just another sign that progressives and the president really don’t trust anyone but their fellow travellers.

Well, nuff said and nuff rambling for one post.

Who is blocking the solution to shutdown, debt limit?

Senate Democrats block progress on debt limit, shutdown

Reid nixes bipartisan compromise in Senate

The folks over the Huffington Post are all happy because the people they like in the Senate are all over throwing various compromise solutions back in the faces of the Republicans if they offer any.

 

NO SURRENDER! NO RETREAT!

 

I think the American people deserve a little bit better than this, but I understand the sentiment and it is a two-way street. However, having said that, it seems egregious to me that the Majority Leader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, rejected a compromise proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that had the support of at least six Democrats. Not enough to invoke cloture (should someone decide to filibuster it), but enough to pass the bill if all the Republicans bought into the measure.

So, the narrative remains that it all the Republicans’ fault. I am sorry, but that meme doesn’t fly anymore. This has become a situation where the progressives/liberals are saying “We won the White House. We still control the Senate. It don’t matter what the House says, especially since it is controlled by the opposition. What we want goes, period. End of sentence. End of story. And if you don’t like that you are a hostage-taking, kidnapping, baby-killing, ransom-demanding, terrorist bomber.”

If it were left to me, and I was the only one whose vote mattered, I would start with serious clearing out of the halls of Congress in November 2014 (if not sooner in those states where recall elections are permitted) and I would start with the liberals and progressives, and probably would continue on down to all the elected folks, and then start on the career staff that man all the policy-affecting offices in the congress members’ offices. Now, that is not going to happen, but it is what I would do.

Of course, there is little I could or would do with the blatant partisanship among the various news gathering and news disseminating organizations, other than call them on the fact that they are not fair and balanced, especially the ones in the broadcasting field but also including those in the traditional print media.

Sorry, but label what passes for journalism now as what it is: in the traditional sense of it, we are living again in the heyday of new era of Yellow Journalism.

Wikipedia's defines "Yellow Journalism"

Now, if you don’t know about Yellow Journalism, you need to go back a little more than a century or so, and look at the way the news was covered by the “majors” … not a pretty sight.

The “objective journalism” standard never really has been the norm, but for a brief shining period there in the 1950s and 1960s (and maybe into the 1970s and early 1980s) it was something that mainstream journalists professed as their goal. Not that they even came close, but it was the dream of a lot journalists that trained in that era.

So, I think it is time for us to let go of that illusion and realize that is not the case. Time to realize that everyone has a point of view and to them, it is fair and balanced and everyone else’s is prejudiced.

However, I would like to disabuse those who say that the House has no right to defund programs it doesn’t like. Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt. You may not like it, but the same thing was tried when the Iraq War went south. Remember the people who voted for the war before they voted against it? If you don’t remember that issue, then you need to have your memory checked because it wasn’t that long ago.

And just because some law has passed Congress, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, does not mean that law is engraved in stone … and unless it is an amendment to the Constitution, it is not necessarily the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes do take precedence over state law, but that does not equal constitutional status.

If it were the case, then little things like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Volstead Act would still be the law of the land. Or Plessey v. Ferguson would still be in effect. Nope, laws can be changed. Courts can change their opinion on what is constitutional and what is not.

Even if it is a law, Congress (especially in the case of the House) has the prerogative to vote against providing any funds to enforce or put any law into effect. Heck, it has been underfunding immigration enforcement for years.

I really would hope, however, that more people would look at the situation unfolding in Washington, D.C., and recognize that despite the repetition of the canard that it all is the fault of the party that controls the House of Representatives, the fault for this mess does indeed lie elsewhere.

To me, the answer is obvious beyond debate.

Nuff said.

I think Jimmy Carter should stick to building houses

Democracy is not working in US: Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter does some pretty amazing work with his wife through his efforts with Habitat for Humanity. I really laud his efforts there.

Unfortunately, when he strays from that he kinda loses me.

For example, I think Habitat for Humanity is an incredible program. It helps build homes for people who otherwise might not have one and those people have to put some sweat-equity into not only their new home, but others as well. It is part of the Habitat contract with the individual. No, these homes are not just given to people gratis. Sorry, that isn’t what the program is about.

In addition, in most places, it is not a government program. I think that is one reason that it works so well. It is a non-governmental effort that makes agreements with families that through donated labor and material a home will be constructed to modern standards as long as the person agrees to put in so many hours working on their own home as well as helping build other homes. I think that is a fair trade.

However, I think President Carter implies a lot more than he bargains for when he starts saying that things like housing, health care and education are “rights.” Yes, they are necessary things and things that one would hope that most people would have at least some access to. 

Having said that, I would start to question where one draws the line on providing necessities to people. It is the old “How much is enough” question and who gets to decide what enough is.

For people like Carter, it seems that government is the answer to who should be doing the providing and begs the question of who decides how much is enough. And of course, if government is not guaranteeing food, housing, health care and education, then obviously democracy is failing.

Sorry, Mr. Carter, but that is a bunch of hokem and you should be old enough and smart enough to realize that it defies human nature. You and the folks with Habitat are smart enough to require a contract from the new homeowners, but it seems that when something becomes a “right” and is provided by the government, then the contract that requires some return from the purchaser (receiver of goods and/or services) gets lost somewhere.

Actually, Mr. Carter, democracy is alive and well in the American republic. Maybe you don’t like the way things are going, but then you had your chance and the American people chose a different course than you were offering some forty years ago. Sorry, but the American people weren’t buying what you were selling. (I remember, because I had to endure double-digit inflation and mortgage rates pushing 20 percent and witnessed double digit unemployment when benefits were far less generous than now.)

I am afraid the President Barack Obama is having to learn the same lesson that President Carter had to learn. Sometimes, a large number of people in the US tend to resent things just being handed to them or someone else. They see the ultimate fairness in exchanges – like the sweat-equity contracts demanded by Habitat for Humanity – for goods and services.

A lot of people look at 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits and scrunch up their noses and eyebrows and wonder what the heck is going on. They also look at people expecting the government to provide them with housing, healthcare, food and cellphones and wonder whatever happened to the contract where you had to give in order to receive?

Take the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Mr. Carter: Interestingly enough a slim majority of Americans (at least reflected by the people they sent to represent them in the House of Representatives) seem to think it is not working out like it was projected and maybe there should be some changes in the program … like making it apply to everybody and not just those unfortunate not to have the pull to be exempted from its provisions and face fines etc. if they don’t get with the program. So their representatives are using the constitutionally-mandated power given them to rattle a few cages and try to get the attention of the Senate and the Executive Branch to maybe tweak the law some.

You need to put a call in the Mr. Obama, Mr. Carter, and tell him that maybe he should be listening more to the people and less to the media, the pundits and his political cronies.

Just a random thought there.

New Narrative: GOP moves goal posts

CNN: GOP changes demands to resolve impasse

I love politics … because it is so predictable … at least in the US.

Ok, to be out front – the way I see it – the shutdown could be ended today if the SENATE would pass the funding resolutions in its current hopper.

That won’t happen because the SENATE is holding out for one big omnibus continuing resolution to fund ALL government operations. It is either the omnibus spending bill or no bill – the so-called “clean CR” – according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and President Barack Obama.

However, I am seeing others starting to pick up on the point of view that what the House of Representatives is doing is IN FACT just what those silly dead white men 225 years ago wanted it to do in cases like this when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly what those evil “framers” or “founders” of our government expected and wanted the House to do. It is performing its role as a check on the Senate and the Executive Branch (the president) by exercising its power over the purse.

Now, there are those, mainly progressives, who see this as a bad thing (although they were busy trying to defund military operations in Iraq just a few years ago), but it really is what people like James Madison and the others who sweated the summer of 1787 out in Philadelphia to contrive a more perfect union meant to happen.

What those less than three-score of gentlemen did really is quite remarkable, when  you look at the diversity (yes, Virginia, they were a diverse cultural lot) of the group and the interests that they represented.

It indeed was a grand compromise, that no one went home 100 percent satisfied with the result (the biggest rift was over the institution of slavery), but it still put in place a formula for governance that pretty well stood the test of time … until we all got complacent about it and for reasons discussed very well by the guru at Strafor (George Friedman) we have let ideologues grab the wheels of power.

(The roots of how we got here)

Still and yet, the government is functioning pretty much within normal designed operating parameters – despite the rather bizarre rhetoric and talking points being distributed by the leadership of the Democrat Party and its supporters.

As I told one person today, it ain’t time to man the barricades just yet.  Her concerns are well grounded, I told her, and not all people are quite as tolerant and generous as she might be but while we may be in the latter stages of the infamous “Cycle of Democracy”, there always is hope. Hope does spring eternal, despite what we might think in moments of despair as we watch/hear/read the news each day from various sources competing to get us to accept their view of world affairs.

That most of them – at least all those people who talk at us via the TV and Internet these days as well as those who we have elected to lead the government - really are being disingenuous (being charitable here) is most distressing and, as Pappy used to say, you just want to knock some heads together to knock some sense in them.

Does it not seem strange that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get a chunk of money (some $445 million) while the $100,000 that supposedly goes to the survivors of American service members killed in the line of duty (roughly two dozen since Oct. 1, including four killed in action in Afghanistan) has been suspended because the government can’t afford it?

Or how about a rally on the National Mall by supporters of amnesty for people who have entered the United States without the proper documentation or have overstayed the visits they said they were going to have when groups of aged veterans from World War II are denied access to the open-air memorial on the same mall and threatened with arrest if they come back?

How about people being denied access to their privately owned homes and businesses that happen to have ended up on property owned by the federal government in the creation of various national parks?

Or the National Institutes of Health enrolling a half-dozen or so sick children in special treatment programs even though they have been forbidden to do so by the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office Building next to the White House?

If that does not sound to you like misplaced priorities, then I would question whether you should reexamine those priorities. I definitely think there is some serious misrepresentation of issues going on here.

And no, the federal government is not going to default on its debt payments, unless someone in the executive branch really screws things up.

A) Under existing funding legislation (and that already passed by the House) funds are available to pay the interest on the national debt … hence, no need for a default because that is what is required. It is when you don’t make those payments that you default. It is a bit like paying your mortgage (even in the worst of times, if all you can do is pay the interest portion, the lender probably will not give you too much of a bad time).

B) The federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling in order to make these payments, because it takes in enough money in taxes, tariffs, duties, etc., to cover the interest due along with a whole bunch of other things.

The debt ceiling debate is sort of like arguing over which credit cards you are going to try to pay this month, with one side let’s just raise the credit limit and the other side saying that it might be a good idea to start cut back on how much we are spending.

Unfortunately, what we are being treated to daily by those we have hired to run our government is a whole lot less than the truth and a whole lot of stuff to try to scare us into demanding that one political party’s viewpoint is the only acceptable one.

I don’t think so.

But that is enough of my random thoughts for this go around.

Nuff said.

Good cop, bad cop

Russians, Syrians jump on Kerry's proposal
After reading the WaPo’s story on the developments surrounding the US threat to bomb Syrian government military facilities in response to the Aug. 21, 2013, chemical attack that killed anywhere from 350 to 1400 Syrian civilians in a rebel-held area, I am so struck by the proposition that either President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry either have been played like a fiddle by the Russians or there was a whole lot of colluding going on to convince the Assad regime that it was in its best interest to divest itself of chemical weapons before the rebels seized them.

This is playing out like an old-fashioned crime movie, with the Russians playing the good cop and the US playing the bad cop. You know the scene where the perp is in the interrogation room and they are trying to get him to turn state’s evidence. The bad cop goes and threatens to wreak holy hell on the perp if he doesn’t turn over on his buddies in crime. The good cop comes in, offers the perp a cigarette and gets all buddy buddy with him. Warning that if he doesn't do the reasonable thing, the good cop won’t be able to protect him from the evils of the bad cop.

Bingo, the guy flips and tells all.

Now, if I was a conspiracy buff, it would seem awfully suspicious that Russian President Putin and US President Obama just happened to be at a joint meeting last week (the G-20 summit) and went to great lengths to put on a show how they couldn’t stand each other. And Kerry has his head together with his Russian counterpart where someone accidentally raises the concept. Nothing official mind you, just what do you think kind of thing.

Then, the week ends with Obama rattling the US saber as loudly as he can, but he backs off a bit to say: well, let me take this up with Congress. Over the weekend, all the talk is about trying to get Congress and the American people to buy into an act of war against Syria. Well, the media war began long ago, but that is beside the point.

Anyway, Deputy Sheriff Kerry, on his way home from a meeting with his European Union counterparts, holds a press conference and in apparent off-hand response to a question about what could avert a US attack, he say: well, if Syria would get rid of all its chemical weapons and put them under international (read UN) control in a week, then all would be hunky dory but … that’s not going to happen.

The next thing, the good cop deputy is calling the bad cop deputy and saying we got a deal and goes public with it.  By the time Deputy Kerry is on the ground, everybody knows and everybody who doesn’t want the bad cop to do anything is running around trying to figure out how they can make it happen.

Now, I am not saying this is the way things went down. I am not saying it is going to work. I am saying it does tend to make you think it might be what is going down and people in leadership positions are actually smarter than we think.

Or it really could just be another gaffe from the Obama Administration that the Russians are using for their gain and the detriment of the US.

Life is interesting, isn’t it?

Government by fiat

Obama, rejected by Congress, implements new gun control steps

Now, if you don’t have problems with the sentence above, then you have problems living in a democratic republic.

The Obama Administration, failing to get its gun control agenda through Congress, said it is going to go around Congress and by executive order implement its idea of gun control.

This is government by executive fiat and we are seeing a distressing increase in it in the United States under the current administration.

But let's take the gun control steps first.

By using the language (and most people’s limited understanding of what is really being said), the administration’s decision to block the re-importation of “military-grade” firearms given as military aid a half-century ago probably seems reasonable. Can’t have all those Army automatic weapons like machineguns being purchased by civilians.

However, the real impact is to block the re-importation of the staple weapon used by most of the infantrymen in World War II and the Korean War: the M1 Garand 30-06 caliber semiautomatic rifle. The problem with the Garand is that it makes a lousing weapon in the hands of a criminal. It is big with only an 8-round clip in its magazine. It one fires one bullet at a time and automatically ejects the clip when your 8th round goes down range. It also will smash the heck out of your thumb if you don’t get it out of the way of the bolt when you insert a new clip (and try manually setting up a clip some time, it ain’t fun). It does not even come close to fitting anyone’s description of the fearful “assault rifle.” No 30-round detachable magazines, etc.

Why the administration is banning the re-importation of such collectible weapons is beyond me, but there is some rationale there somewhere.

Still, back to the basic point: When is the current US administration going to be called to account for using its regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative powers of the Congress chosen by the people to enact the rules they want?

I think the American people need to start asking why Congress is laying down on the job and not challenging the executive branch’s usurpation of its powers.

Abdication of responsibility

Reid tells Obama not to wait for Congressional OK to raise debt

Did I miss something, or has the Senate been out to lunch for a few years now.

Ok, Congress is split between the Republicans holding the House and the Democrats controlling the Senate. It has been a recipe for gridlock (which really isn’t all bad) but it supposed to be a recipe for compromise. Unfortunately, it seems, under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, compromise with the House is beneath the Senate under his watch.

Note that the Senate has not passed an actual budget in more than three years, and now Reid is telling the president that he can raise the congressionally mandated debt ceiling by executive fiat and to ignore those idiots in the House who are demanding some cuts to federal expenditures as the price for raising the debt ceiling.

It matters not that the federal government already owes $15 trillion (yes, that is TRILLION as in 15,000,000,000,000 – yeah … with 12 zeros). It will run into a problem, because it is borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar it spends these days. Of course, it is all in the name of stimulating the economy.

However, it is Congress, not the Executive Branch, which controls the federal government’s purse strings according to that document nobody seems to want to remember these days called the Constitution. You know the basic law and charter that underpins who does what in the federal government and what the federal government can and cannot do. Yeah, that obscure document.

Well, it seems to me that Sen. Reid and his cohorts have pretty much punted and have abdicated their responsibility for the last three years. Now, it seems they want to give up even more responsibility to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

You know, just how modern American is that. Nobody seems to what to take responsibility for what they are supposed to do, society-wide, it seems. Okay, I am being a bit harsh on a goodly chunk of Americans, but it does seem that the mindset of let the other guy (i.e. government) take care of what needs to be done is carrying the day.

Washington Post political columnist George Will recently pointed how just how much the Democrats have basically given up on ever balancing the federal budget. Time for a balanced budget

It really is sad, when the people who are supposed to be representing the states can’t seem to do their jobs. But then again, I remind myself, this is what 52 percent or so of the country voted for back in November.

Just remember two things when the train wreck hits.

1. It is all the Republicans fault.

2. The federal government can spend all the money it wants because the “rich” will pay for it.

But that is the way it is in America … instead of a nation of industrious ants, we have become a nation of grasshoppers as per the ancient fable.

What was it the poet laureate of my generation used to say?

“What? Me worry?”   – Alfred E. Neuman.

How can there be a vote with nobody there?

Harry Reid: Filibuster Changes Will Take Place In January

“Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has been working with Reid on the proposed changes, which would effectively force any senators wanting to delay a vote to visibly take to the floor and talk. Once every senator had left the floor and could no longer debate, a cloture vote would be taken that would require only a simple majority rather than two-thirds of the chamber in order to pass muster”

-  Quote from Huffington Post story on reforming the Senate filibuster rules.

Ok, let me see if I understand how this is going to work:

There is only one person left on the floor to debate and then they take a vote to cut off debate. Who the heck is voting? That one person? That would be a majority of one.

I thought a Senator had to be on the floor to vote, but I guess they now have early voting (they don’t?) and absentee ballots (they don’t?) or some other magical method to cast a vote without being in the Senate Chamber (i.e. on the floor).

It would seem to me, that the moment another senator returned to the floor, the debate would, in effect, be rejoined.

However, under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, this is how Congress works folks with a huge hole in logic and understanding.

Then there is the little matter of having a quorum of Senators present in order to have a legal vote.

And people wonder why our faith in the federal government institutions is being sorely tested.

Not such an old problem

Pentagon’s fiscal bath
Assuming the President and Congress don’t come up with a some sort of deal by Dec. 31, 2012, the fiscal crunch facing the government really is going to bite … especially at the Defense Department.
The DOD is going to take, supposedly, about a $1 trillion hit over the next five years, or about $200 billion per year. That is from its regular budget and not including the “war” supplementals that have funded Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. With the U.S. basically out of Iraq and in the process of pulling out of Afghanistan by the end of 2114, then it would seem that there should be a nice little “peace dividend” to be had.
Unfortunately, as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta points out, the need for bodies to fill out the necessary ranks is going to bump up against any efforts to continue to modernize the capabilities of the military service, with either the size of the force having to be drastically reduced or modernization and future procurements deferred. Why is this? It is because the cost of maintaining the individual service member is rising and has been since the advent of the all-volunteer force.
It is funny, because I predicted this situation way back in 1971 in a paper I wrote for a political science class on adopting the all-volunteer force (even had a nifty graph that went with it). Be that as it may, the problem is that housing, feeding and providing medical care for volunteers, an increasing number of whom are married and bring with them the obligation to provide dependent care, has eaten a larger and larger component of the military’s budget each year and that is not going to stop unless the situation can be changed.
There is a way to change the calculus, but I doubt the Pentagon or Congress would ever go for it. The Pentagon, for instance, would not like it because it probably would reduce the number of flag officers (generals and admirals) on active duty and that definitely is a non-starter. As for Congress, well, let it suffice to say that it might hamper its irresponsibility.
Anyway, my plan – which actually was printed in the Congressional Record many years ago courtesy of  South Carolina Sen. Fritz Hollings (D) – would replace each reduction in active service members by increasing the number in the reserves by 2 or three times the reduction. This is sort of a return to the pre-World War II model of military force manning that depended far more than today on the Reserves and National Guard (militias).
In addition, the military could – but it is not likely – return to service rank structures that existed before 1970, when pay grade inflation hit to make up for the lack of pay increases as inflation racked the military pay scales. In other words, instead of paying soldiers more at their current rank, they allowed promotions to higher rank to compensate for the low pay. Hence, the job once done by a corporal was now assigned to a sergeant; and what was done by a staff sergeant was done by a sergeant first class; and jobs that were usually done by first lieutenants was now being done by captains, jobs done by majors was now done by lieutenant colonels, etc.
Now, the key is increasing the size of the Reserves – such as the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. Currently the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard combined have about the same number of members as the active component of the Army. It is a figure that according my research even 40 years ago provides a really inadequate 1:1 ratio. The ratio should be closer to three or four reservists for every active duty service member (and is in most countries).
The best benefit of such an approach, from a budgetary standpoint, is that is costs about 30 to 40 cents to fund a reservist for every $1 it costs to maintain an active component member. So, assuming that you increase the ration to 2:1, you still can cut up to 20 percent of the personnel costs for the active component. That sure would make the progressives happy, but I doubt that many of them would be volunteering to fill the additional ranks of needed in the reserves.
And that is the problem with the reserves: Manning. I only once served in a reserve unit (in the 18 years I served in the Naval Reserve and Army National Guard) that was at full strength (and it didn’t have enough officers and included only 13 people of all ranks). The problem being is that (a) being in the Reserves does impose some sacrifices on what is essentially a civilian lifestyle and (b) as the last 15 years have pointed out, there always is the probability that you might be mobilized for up to two years out of every six. That really puts a damper on motivating people to join up.
But a political upside is that such a ratio would put a damper on the political leadership haring off on military adventures. It is one thing to send in off-the-radar active component people, but when you start calling up people’s neighbors, the political cost starts to climb … which really is a good thing, when you think about it.
Anyway, don’t look for Congress or the Pentagon or even the President to come out and endorse such economizing in the defense budget. It makes too much sense. It is too logical and therefore definitely is not among those things that should be considered.
Besides, it is too restraining on presidential options, and the options the generals and admirals can offer to a president.

Failure to understand

Failure of the campaigns
American political system is not working
No matter how Tuesday’s (Nov. 6) election turns out, at all levels, we will have those 21^st Century types that don’t understand how this venerable American political system designed in the 18^th Century is working actually the way it was designed, which really is an amazing tribute to the people who have shaped it over the last 225 years.
In both of the above referenced articles, the authors complain of the “failure” of the American political system. Apparently, if I am interpreting their rhetoric correctly, the failure is in that the government apparently is gridlocked and cannot agree on solutions. This is bad, according to them.
Well, count me among those who say maybe it isn’t so bad.
Yes, both sides of the political spectrum are being fairly obstructive, but then that is their jobs. Their jobs are to represent the people who voted them into office, not their constituency at large. Now, I am not saying that these people are not educated, or unintelligent, but I am saying that I don’t agree with their understanding of how a democratic republic is supposed to operate.
To that end, I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
First, there is a failure to communicate exactly what Americans view as their expectations of the role government (especially the federal government) in their lives, in their finances, their health and nutrition, and in the economic affairs of the nation in general.
There is a great divide in America right now between those who see a big role for the federal government providing for welfare of the American people and those who are suspicious of the federal government intervening in the lives of individuals. That divide, unfortunately, is wide and probably can’t be reconciled, but it will have to be accommodated somehow.
Second, somewhere along the line, two concepts were missed in translation and apparently failed to be communicated to the generations in the 21^st Century. The first concept is that instantaneous gratification really is not possible, no matter how much we want to believe it is. Part two is that winner takes all is not part of the democratic equation; rather it sows the seeds of conflict in the future, especially in a country that has more than one vision of what that future ought to be.
So, we have people looking at the American system and saying “It is broken” or “It is dysfunctional” when they really mean that it is not providing the solutions that they think it should. That seems to be more a problem of their expectations than whether the system is broken or dysfunctional.
However, assuming that it is “broken”, I would be very curious as to what their “solution” would be. My question is that while they may think it is broken, could it not be that the “system” is thinking, trying to ascertain what the best solution might be.
You see, your first reaction sometimes is not the best reaction. Sometimes it is, and then again sometimes it isn’t. We used to value people in this country people who would take the time to consider their actions, rather than merely react to certain stimuli. I fear that carefully considered approach is waning, to be replaced by the demands of those who require instant gratification.
I mean, just look at our wired world today. Millions, if not billions, of people have the ability to access information nearly instantaneously, make a snap judgment on that information (as incomplete as it may be) and then move on to the next thing that may attract their attention.
It takes no thought to do that. I would call it reactionary, but I suspect that many of those who are addicted to the swiftness of modern communications would revolt at being labeled as such, particularly progressives who seem to be enamored with the benefits of such technology.
We seem to have forgotten that it takes time to lay foundations and to build new edifices to our dreams and hopes for the future. No, we seem to have lost that perspective … and this is not just a left-right deal or liberal/progressive-v-conservative argument.
It is more of a generational thing, where those who vaguely remember what life was like before television, cell phones and the internet can recall having to wait … and wait … and wait … sometimes. Not just for decisions, but for the information to base those decisions on. Patience is not a virtue that Americans have.
The election, whenever it is decided, will not change things immediately. I hope people realize that. The system will continue its slow, inexorable process toward resolution of issues large and small … and no, the world is not going to come to end on Dec. 21.
The system is not broken or dysfunctional … it merely is not spitting out solutions at the pace your video game has taught you to react to.

No budget

Fiscal cliff?

Continuing resolution

Ok, I guess it covers it. The federal government is supposed to be operating on a budget that goes into effect on Oct. 1 every year. However, this session of Congress, like the session in 2010 and 2011, didn’t really pass a budget. It passed what is known as a “continuing resolution” which basically is kicking the can down the road, as one politician put it.

Being a product of political grid lock, such resolutions basically permit the government to continue functioning on the basis of previous budget authorization and spending laws. In this case, it seems that while the House did pass a budget (meeting its constitutional responsibility), the Senate as it has done every year since 2009 has found it  politically inexpedient to pass the budget, opting instead to authorize the government’s various agencies to continue spending for the next six months while a compromise is sorted out.

Unfortunately, apparently, the grand compromise from 2011 has to have a “budget” passed and not a continuing resolution or the great sequestration goes into effect.

Not bad politics, if you think about it. It is not like the Senate could not have passed a budget. It could have, and it could have been substantially different than the House-passed version. Then, however, the good senators would have had to have been on “the record” so to speak about what their budget priorities were. Not good.

So, the House has gone on record – and being controlled by Republicans – and that gives the Democrats a good foil to use during this election year … and relieves them of any responsibility for the fiscal affairs of the nation.

Personally, I think it is all porcine scatology. Well, even more than that: It is about “transforming” the country, as President Obama says. I may not approve the way the Obama Administration is going about this transformation, but it is getting a lot of help from the Senate, which is depressing. I also may not approve of the nature of the transformation, but until more people vote against it than for it, I will be in the minority and, therefore, must accept the results. That, folks, is what you do in a democratic republic.

Of course, that course may change … and I hope it does.

A hypothetical situation

I am not going to source this one, like I do, because it is merely speculation on my part and not necessarily based on what I expect or what I think is true (at least I hope not).

As I pointed out in a previous blog, it seems that the Democrats are going to great lengths to level the charge that the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of their supporters. Whether it is attempts to remove illegals, dead people, people in prison, people no longer living in a district (we are a republic, remember) from voter rolls or the whole discourse over how unfair it is to require someone to have a valid photo identification in order to vote, it seems that Democrats are really flogging the voter suppression issue, or at least it seems that way in the online national news media web sites.

Another thing, there is a huge debate on the accuracy of various media polls that are published it seems daily on how much support the Democratic and Republican party candidates have. Conservative sites trumpet how close the race seems, while progressive and what I used to call liberal (apparently the term is passé) sites trumpet how far ahead President Obama is and how seemingly unpopular former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is.

Given this drumbeat, I pose some what-ifs:

What if, despite the polls, Romney wins not only the Electoral College vote, but also the popular vote, by a substantially clear margin?

What if, Romney wins the Electoral College but not the popular vote?

What if, Romney actually wins the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote? (Ok, that is not likely but it could happen)

Given the polarization being advanced by the new media as well as the old media, what is going to happen?

What if, God forbid, there is a Republican surge and the party sweeps a whole bunch of Senate races unexpectedly?

On the flip side:

Will the right really revolt if Obama wins re-election, especially by a sizeable margin?

In either case, will Americans accept the results of Nov. 6 or will they reject them?

That is what is concerning me. It almost seems as if someone wants to have a self-fulfilling prophecy that will make the Mayan calendar “prediction” of the “end time” come true.

I don’t know what will happen in any of the above scenarios. I do know enough, however, to ask questions and seek answers.

I also have considerable hope that all the hyperbole that is being spouted in the new media, internet and traditional media is merely information overload and not really reflective of reality.

I may be wrong, but I have this belief in our ability to face reality and cope with it, however harsh it may be. The next six weeks will be ugly in a political sense in the United States … and maybe throughout the world, the way things are looking. It may get even uglier as Dec. 21 comes (the end of the Mayan Calendar) but I fully expect that this time next year, we will all look back and say:

“WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING BACK THEN?”

Executive orders?

Questions about Obama’s cybersecurity plans – PC World

About a month ago, I raised my own red flag on the issue that is troubling the computer magazine PC World. I need reiterate it again, I suppose.

I know that it may not be politically correct to say so, especially among those who really had a visceral hatred of George W. Bush, but our current president, Barack Obama, scares me every time he starts talking about using executive orders to implement something he can’t get passed by Congress. I would hope that this government by fiat would be upsetting to others as well.

We have seen this administration move much farther abroad than the previous administration in applying its changes to the law by executive rules, regulations and basically fiats on what laws to enforce and on whom they should be enforced. This must be a frightening trend to those of us who celebrate our civil liberties, economic rights and our basic freedoms.

If a president doesn’t need Congress to enact law, then why have a Congress (I know that may sound good, but it really is a bad idea)? This propensity of President Obama to use his executive orders to enact new law in such a broad spectrum of government policy is the reason I find him to a walking disaster area. He seems to be intent on advancing his agenda, regardless of the views of the American people who elect those people to represent them in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Granted, Congress is polarized. Being polarized just reflects the fact that the people are split very badly about what they think are the best policies to advance the nation. When there is no consensus, then inaction often is the best answer, despite what our elites and so-called opinion makers, or our media elites or the president and the political leaderships may think. Ironically, the system was designed for such inaction in the face of polarization.

If it was not for the War of Rebellion that saw the Southern states withdraw from Congress, then the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments would never have passed. But the slave-holding states did withdraw, did go into rebellion, did lose that rebellion, and basically lost whatever influence they had to keep the institution and to keep African-Americans in chattel bondage. However, they were able to resurrect apartheid and maintain it for many years until even that was overturned. (Note: It was the Democratic Party that was instrumental in maintaining the Jim Crow legislation and fought the civil rights reforms of the 1960s).

I hope those who go to the polls keep that thought in mind: Do they want to retain such polarization? Do they want to eliminate it? And to which side do they want the country to go? I hope that for a little bit of security that my fellow Americans are not willing to sacrifice even more of their liberty.

Big fib

Convention but no Hillary

Why no Hillary

Illegal for Hillary to be there

Hatch Act references

The Hatch Act as Amended

The Hatch Act of 1939

Federal employees limited in partisan political activities

Justice Department explains

Sorry, but an unidentified senior Obama administration official needs to go back and check the law before mouthing off.

It is not “illegal” under the so-called Hatch Act for a secretary of state to attend a political function. As a matter of fact, such high-level political policy-making presidential appointees are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Hatch Act.

For those who are not familiar with the “Hatch Act”, it was initially passed in 1939 to prohibit federal government employees from having to work in the political campaigns of their elected masters. Sounds quite reasonable to me; however, the act was amended in 1993 (and went into effect in 1994) to make it easier for those federal employees to express their political views. Those amendments did not bar the secretaries of state and defense or the attorney general from attending political meetings such as the national conventions.

Now, then-President Clinton delegated the authority to those three (but not others) to put out “rules” and guidelines that limited what political activities could be involved in, but did not explicitly say: The Secretary can not participate. Beep! Wrong answer.

So, despite what the senior Obama administration official was saying, there was no law banning her from the Democratic National Convention … and if there is, I wish someone would show me exactly where it says that a secretary of state is barred from attending such a political convention.

No, folks. This unfortunately is a big fib, being pushed along by the reporter at CNN and others.

Good try, though.

Medicaid: One size fits all?

Ryan plan sparks Medicaid debate

Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin representative/Republican vice presidential nominee, has brought up a good topic for debate: Should the states or the federal government administrate the Medicaid programs that pay for health care for the poor and the indigent.

That is a good question.

Is it better that the states decide the extent of the Medicaid program and who it helps or doesn’t help, or should that decision be a decision made by Congress, or a federal regulatory agency like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services/Health Care Financing Administration?   Who is the CMMS/HCFA?

Most democratic-socialists will tell you that it needs to be a national program, while most federal-republicans will tell you it needs to be in the hands of the state governments which lie closer to the people. Where you fall out in that debate is the choice you have to make according to what you see the role of government being at each level.

I, for one, tend toward the traditional democratic-republican view point of Thomas Jefferson, even though I dearly love James Madison (and he is one of my personal heroes – even if this is the 100^th year of his disastrous War of 1812 when he shouldn’t have tried to play commander in chief in the field, but that is a whole other story), that government works best when it is closest to the people. In other words, the lower the level of government, the better it works for the benefit of the people.

This is especially true for communities. Communities and their governments, usually municipal or county/parish governments are far more responsive to the needs and desires of their constituents than state governments … and far more responsive than the federal government in Washington. This usually is because the constituents are neighbors to the people running the schools and city halls and let them know their views on their front lawns or over their back fences.

State governments, for similar reasons, usually are little more responsive to the needs of their states than the federal government, but that is partially by design … or malice aforethought, as I put it. Still, state governments can be more reflective and responsive to the demographic makeup and desires of its communities, something that is difficult, if not impossible, at the national/federal government level.

At the national level, in order to avoid being quite arbitrary and capricious in its law and rule making, the government must, basically, make everything “one size fits all.” That, I contend, is a recipe for disaster because problems come in all shapes and sizes and one size definitely doesn’t fit all.

The plan, by those really smart guys way back when, was for each state to be sort of a laboratory of solutions. Each state would try to solve the problems facing its residents, which may or may not be the same or even similar to the ones facing another state. Great idea, but the revolution in telecommunications may have doomed it.

Today, whether it is the Internet or television over cable and satellite, communications are nearly instantaneous, with all problems that are associated with information overload.

One of the complaints in the above article is that advocates for the poor don’t have the resources to go to 50 state capitals to make their cases for greater benefits for the poor and find it much more efficient to take their lobbying to just one place: Washington. But is that not the problem with our national government? Isn’t in the pockets of too many special interests and not looking out for the “general welfare” of the nation?

Of course, the problem with having 51 solutions instead of 1 solution is that it is time consuming and Americans are a notoriously impatient lot. We want our problems solved yesterday, if not sooner, and we don’t like debating over what ought to be done. Just do something, do it now, and make the problem/distraction go away. No need discussing it. No need to come to any compromises. Just do what I want and do it now.

Except sometimes what gets done isn’t what I want, or what my neighbors want, or what might work in some other place but isn’t going to work too well here. Hmmm. Maybe there is a better answer.

As I have said before, government governs best when it governs least, and the best way for that to happen is to leave in the hands of the level of government closest to the people.

Don’t look for that to happen anytime soon, however; the special interests in Washington have no interest in having to work any harder for their causes than they have to.

Power corrupts, doesn’t it?

President considers executive order on cyber-security

President Obama is considering circumventing Congress’  inability to pass legislation implementing certain cyber-security measures his administration wants to see in effect. His response, apparently, is to consider implementing the measures via executive order.

Does this report not bother anybody? It bothers me a bunch. It bothers me because I am seeing the legislative branch being bypassed all too often, in my humble opinion, by recent administrations (especially the most recent) using questionable methods.

The most obvious is the use of executive orders, signing statements and intelligence findings. I understand the necessity of each; however, I do have reservations about even that. I realize that Congress has sometime in the past given presidents the authority to use such tools, I just think their use has become abused and not limited as it should be.

But then, that always is the case, isn’t it?

For example, until about 100 years ago, there were few regulatory agencies in the United States and those that existed enforced Congressional laws, not their own. Then, in the early part of the 20^th Century, new agencies were created to protect the public. As the years passed, these agencies were given more and more power to draw up their own rules and regulations to enforce. Of course, Congress had a check, but basically once a rule was in the Federal Register, it became law. This is not because the Congress approved it, but it is assumed to be approved under the authorizing statute.

 

Code of Federal Regulations

 

Now, the justification for this is that Congress is too busy, or lacks the technical expertise, to micromanage these various agencies and delegates its authority to make the law to these parts of the executive branch.

Now, what Congress can do, Congress can do, although a simpleton like myself thinks it is abdicating its responsibility … but then Congresses have been doing that since the revolution. One of my favorite songs from the musical 1776 is John Adams’ lament “Piddle, Diddle and Resolve.”

What becomes bothersome is that there appears to be no real check or balance to this federal rule making and it seems to be really open to abuse of powers.

So, here we have a president, whose agenda can’t get passed by Congress, issuing executive orders to various and sundry federal agencies telling them either to ignore existing law and invent new law (amnesty for young illegal immigrants) or to make new rules that put certain policies, not Congressionally mandated or authorized, into effect (Aid to Libyan and Syrian insurgents, wavers for mandates under the Affordable Care Act, etc.) and we are not supposed to question anything?

I am sorry, but this really bothers me. If it bothers you too, then think about it. I would like to know what we can do. I would hope an election would change things, but do you think it will?

Anyway, the random thought of the day.

Is it a Pyramid or a Ponzi scheme?

Social Security not such a good deal for workers anymore
Definition of a Ponzi Scheme
Definition of a Pyramid scheme
It seems, according to the latest reports on the American Social Security system that current recipients will be unlike their predecessors: They will get less from Social Security than they put in it.
It seems that, up to now, when a person retired on Social Security that they received more in payments than they put in. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, now that the baby boomer generation is starting to retire and take Social Security, it seems that the money coming in from taxes is going to be less than the payments going out. That doesn’t sound so good, does it?
Well, the good thing for the Social Security system, there is this huge trust fund set up to make up the differences. You see, the federal government (i.e. Congress) has invested all the extra money taken in over the years in federal treasury notes. Those, you should know, are the best, most secure investments you can make. They are guaranteed by the government, even if the Federal Reserve just has to print some more money to cover them.
Anyway, this trust fund should last, under current calculations, until about 2030, until it runs dry. Then the question comes how does the U.S. government keep its promises to all those millions of workers who have paid into the system … that will be interesting, but unfortunately, I doubt very seriously I will be around to see how the government answers it. It will, however, be left to my children and my American grandchildren to figure out how to solve that dilemma.
You see, instead of investing in something that creates wealth, the government was forced to invest in itself. Unfortunately, despite what you may have been taught or told, the government rarely creates wealth … it mostly uses it for the benefit of the people it governs. People make wealth, which is then taxed and taken by the government to use on worthy projects to help the people that are governed by the government … or not so worthy projects, depending on the integrity of the individuals elected to make the decisions (and those they hire) on how the government largess will be disbursed.
In the case of Social Security, workers essentially have been subsidizing the disabled and retirees while receiving a promise from the government that should they become disabled or when they retire at 62-65-67 or whenever, that the younger generation will subsidize their older years.
Actually, it is a wonderful concept. It is one of those beautiful things that we just think is the greatest thing that we can do for our seniors. Unfortunately, like most utopian ideas, it tends to fail in practice. And that is what we are seeing now.
Now, I know you are thinking: Well, you are retired and disabled, don’t you benefit from Social Security? Yup! I do. I paid into the system for 40-plus years, holding up my end of the contract, so I think it is time for the rest of you folks to hold up your end of the contract. Don’t like it? You should have read the small print. Of course, I won’t go into the battles I have had to fight to get the government to honor its contracts with me, but heck, that is what you pay lawyers for, right? (Even if it cost me a pretty penny)
Still, I doubt, with my health, that I will live to get back all I paid into the system (had I been able to invest it in something that produces wealth), so I guess that the system wins (as usual with me, it seems) another round.
However, if you think about it: Social Security qualifies as one of the longest running Ponzi schemes or Pyramid schemes, both of which make suckers of the people who come in at the end … and, interestingly enough, are illegal in the United States and will get you sent to prison … except if you are a member of the U.S. Government’s elected contingent, then you are protected by sovereign immunity (as are all those minions who administer and regulate the system you designed).
Sort of makes you a little angry, doesn’t it? If it doesn’t, it should.
But don’t take your anger out on me. I just played the game by the rules my society and government laid out for me. I basically held up my side of the bargain and now it is time for you to hold up your end of the bargain. Sucks, doesn’t it.

Covert orders?

President signed covert orders aiding Syrian rebels

Something tells me that people in the U.S. need to reexamine the definition of the word “covert” because it is obvious that when it comes to the American government, very little is covert. Definition of "Covert"

cov·ert (kvrt, kvrt, k-vûrt) adj.

1. Not openly practiced, avowed, engaged in, accumulated, or shown: covert military operations; covert funding for the rebels. See Synonyms at secret.

2. Covered or covered over; sheltered.

When something is being reported by practically every major news-reporting agency in the world … it is hard to argue that something is being kept a secret.

President Obama, apparently, sometime in the last year signed a “secret” intelligence “finding” (basically an executive order) authorizing American intelligence agencies covertly to provide aid and comfort (and presumably weapons, etc.) to the forces opposed to the Syrian regime. So much for doing anything secretly. But then again, it is not much of a surprise either.

Now, I have a problem with all this. You see, I am tired of my political leadership getting embroiled in various and sundry conflicts, uprisings, liberation movements, etc., especially in the Middle East. Sorry, but if I have learned anything in the last 25 years or so, it is regardless of whatever intentions the U.S. may have … it ain’t gonna work, especially if we are trying to do it on the QT.

Now, I am not so opposed to maybe passing ammunition and holding coats, but that is about as far as I am going to go right now. Still, I would hope that our esteemed Congress people would have enough sense to keep cool heads about them and do what is in the best interest of the country and not necessarily what is politically cool to do. Oops, what a fool am I am? Like that is ever going to happen in my lifetime or probably my grandchildren’s lifetimes.

Granted, President Assad of Syria is a pretty scummy character and probably ranks up there with our old friend Mr. Hussein over in Iraq. But we have been down that trail once, no need to try it again. Too many pacifists and progressives would get upset and we probably don’t have the troops right now to do it up right.

Of course, there are all sorts of reasons to be concerned about the outcome in Syria because it really will have a snowball effect in the whole region. Unfortunately for the U.S., very few of the outcomes are positive in relation to our interests.

Short of a direct attack on the U.S. (not just U.S. interests but the good old U.S. of A.) I very much doubt that the people who really need to be involved in the decision making process about what role the U.S. should be playing in the area (I.E. The U.S. Congress) will do anything but blather. Besides, it is election season, it is August (and all right and left thinking Congress people are going to flee the swamp that is the District of Columbia, despite air-conditioning), so it is going to be squawk season.

Still, I just wish some people either in D.C. or Arlington or McLean could keep their damn traps shut. It is really is annoying, from the perspective of an old soldier, to see these “leaks” about so-called “secrets”. I am just glad I am not on the tip of the spear, because their job is tough enough as it is without blowing bugles and beating the drums that they are there.