The Latest Immigration Disaster: More Questions Than Answers

This week, we have watched the unfolding story of the thousands of "unaccompanied children" who have been flooding our borders. Without a doubt, this is a human tragedy. Is it a tragedy that could have been avoided? Probably. Our immigration policy, never truly defined, has been rendered completely ineffective by one and one only fact: This administration has steadfastly refused to secure our southern border. Beyond that, the President's former spokes-minion, Jay Carney, actually stood in the press room and lied (again) in his statement that our "...border is more secure than it has ever been."

Just yesterday, the President proposed spending (depending upon whose report you read) either 3.8  or 4.3 billion dollars to help solve the current dilemma. Yet, NOT ONE DOLLAR of this proposed expenditure does anything to stem the flow of this overwhelming attack on our border. No money for a fence, no money for increased enforcement, no LONG TERM solution. Once again, we "lead from behind." Once again, we are reactive rather than proactive.

By the administration's own acknowledgement, many of these latest border crossers will eventually be sent back from whence they came. At least, that is, those who don't "disappear" prior to their hearing dates. Which brings me to question: Do we really have as much control on these visitors as we are being led to believe? We've already heard the story of one who was sent to Maryland and claimed by someone who gave a bogus address and who never showed up for their scheduled hearing. Gone into the hinterlands of America. Probably soon to be found at an emergency room near you, or maybe in your child's school this fall.

And, with all the mass confusion along our border, creating mass distraction for our border control agents, how many of the really BAD characters have we missed? Sadly, we won't know until it's too late. We can reasonably suspect that much of this influx of unaccompanied children at our border is the work of the many Central American drug cartel types. Isn't it also reasonable to assume that this is being done for their benefit in some way?

The next and most burning question I have is "Why all the secrecy when it comes to these children?"Congressman Jim Bridenstine was denied access to one of the facilities where these children are being kept. When he inquired as to what was happening, he was told to email questions  to HHS (Health and Human Services).

Meantime, HHS is willing to schedule tours of these centers with the following restrictions: No pictures, no questions of the children, no real contact. This truly sounds like something out of the former Soviet Union. Why HHS being so secretive? At a time when this administration desperately needs someplace where they can show some transparency, they run in exactly the opposite direction. Look, I understand the idea of protecting the privacy of these children, but we first should be damned certain that these folks aren't bringing MORE uninvited "guests" with them in the form of diseases, parasites, lice, and whatever else with which they may be afflicted.

Personally, I would have no problem with these guests being totally quarantined until their health status is ascertained; yet, HHS has seen fit to transport these people all over the damned country, and schedule "tours" of their detention facilities. That doesn't seem real healthy to me, at least in the present tense. Once that status is established, they should be returned from whence they came.

At the very least, since we, the taxpayers are being "volunteered" to pay this bill, we deserve some semblance of an accounting. Not only that, but if these kids are allowed to stay, our tax dollars will be further spent to educate and care for them, a burden which our already overtaxed educational system cannot afford.

Bottom line: This whole crisis could have been avoided had not the Obama Administration essentially implied that "If you get to America, you can stay." We have essentially obliterated our border at a time when it should be reinforced and closed.

At a time when everyone seems to clamor for "immigration reform," we've been handed a set of circumstances that shows we need to clearly demand that before ANY reform can be considered, we need to STOP the flow of illegal immigrants and control our own borders. Obviously, we cannot trust the current administration to do this, as they have shown no inclination to do so. Without that step, "immigration reform" cannot be considered.

The Misinterpretation of Hobby Lobby

This week, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that Hobby Lobby did not have to provide coverage for four specific drug protocols which are designed to cause a woman to spontaneously abort a fetus.

Almost immediately, the feminists and other leftist types took to the streets, proclaiming that this decision denied employees of the closely held company the right to contraception coverage. (It did no such thing.) Equally immediately, conservatives were arguing that, (for once) religious freedom had prevailed.

Before we settle that weighty issue, we all should take a breath and consider what health insurance is really all about. I have a brother who is CEO of an insurance consulting firm. While his area of expertise is property and casualty insurance, he pointed out in a Facebook posting a (perhaps forgotten) universal truth of insurance in general. Insurance in any form is not designed to cover everything; rather it is designed to protect the insured from the type of catastrophic loss that can bankrupt an individual or company.

Think about that for a moment. If you were to file a claim for every scratch and parking lot "ding" that happens to your car, what would you expect to happen to your premiums? That's right, before long, you'd be either paying through the nose, or cancelled. Accordingly, when we get one of those little  "cart marks," we often ignore it, or if we have it repaired, we PAY for the repair, leaving our insurance company to cover that untimely mating between your Buick and someone else's Ford. Works pretty well for car insurance, doesn't it?

When it comes to health insurance, however, our perspective changes. We seem to want to pay NOTHING for every little visit to the doctor, for every prescription, regardless of how inexpensive.
Now, to be perfectly honest, birth control pills cost $9 per month. But, if our health insurance doesn't cover it, some feel that they're being denied a human right. So, in order to cover that benefit for females of child bearing age, we ALL have to pony up a little more premium whether we are male or female, child bearing or not.

Since it has been decided that this benefit is necessary,  let's add in the next variable. When the PPACA (also known as Obamacare) was being considered, one of the "sticking points" that had to be dealt with was government (tax payer dollars) paying for abortion. In order to secure passage of the bill, it was agreed that there would be no Federal funding of abortion. This assuaged the concerns of many Christians, such as the Green family who own Hobby Lobby.

However, many feminists we not happy with this, demanding that among the contraceptive protocols that be covered would be the "morning after" pill and other pharmaceuticals that cause a woman to abort a conceived embryo. While the Greens were willing to accept coverage of 16 contraceptive drugs, their religious convictions dictated that they not allow the four drugs which cause spontaneous abortion.

The President and his minions have granted many exemptions to the PPACA for political friends and allies; for that matter, they've essentially changed the PPACA 38 times without bringing it back before the Congress, something MANY feel is a blatant example of executive overreach.

So, the Greens sought relief through the courts. And that brings us to this week. And this is where the madness begins. The whole of the left's representation is that this decision somehow limits the rights of Hobby Lobby associates to birth control. Nothing could be further from the truth and THEY KNOW IT. The left is counting on the fact that no one will pay attention to the actual DECISION of the SCOTUS, but will listen to the false brayings of the feminist lobby which is telling outright LIES. Certainly the media won't point out the falsehoods; they're already in the tank protecting their pals on the left.

Even Hillary Clinton has jumped into this deception, saying that she is "deeply disturbed that the associates at Hobby Lobby are being denied contraception," knowing FULL WELL  that it is UNTRUE. Anything to perpetuate the phony "war on women" that has become the main talking point of the left. Not only that, but her cries of foul run against the Religious Freedom Protection Act which her own husband signed.

They are depending on the stupidity of the American public to hold this against conservatives at the ballot box. Considering some of the truly remarkably ignorant things I have heard recently in "man on the street" interviews, this may work. If it does, God help us all.

A Tale of Two Soldiers

The master of distraction is  at it again. Just when we start to ask questions and begin to break apart the Veteran's Administration  mess, our attention is pulled away by the prisoner exchange whereby we return 5 of the Taliban's top guys who were vacationing at Club Gitmo for one misguided Army private who seemed to  be predisposed to going on walkabout (without leave) and seeking the company of  the Taliban. Oh , by the way, we're supposed to be FIGHTING the Taliban, not trying to find their camp so we can join them for s'mores.

At  some point, the Army will determine whether Bowe Bergdahl was, in fact incredibly stupid, a deserter, mentally ill or what. So far, according to his American compatriots, informed opinion is that then-Private (now Sergeant) Bergdahl deserted his post and (possibly willingly) sought out the enemy.

All of which leaves most of us mortals with many more questions than answers.  I fully acknowledge that part of the mission of the brave men and women who man  the front lines to keep us safe is to "leave no man (or woman) behind." But, what price are we, as a nation, to pay for the return  of an Army private who seemed to have no allegiance to his country. According to the President and his minions, we were going to let these guys out of Gitmo anyway. But, if that's the case, why did the President find it so urgent to strike this deal as to (once again) circumvent Congress.

In truth, Congress, given a mere briefing or "heads up," might well have approved this trade. Their reputation is only slightly less "squirrely" than that of the President. Who knows what deals  might have been struck behind closed doors.

The fact remains, however, that the Chief Executive, went around the Constitution yet again. And
the timing of the whole thing is rather questionable when you consider the VA scandal on the front burner until this trade.

Plus, this trade stinks. Those of you who follow auto racing will understand that this trade is something akin to trading A.J. Foyt, Mario Andretti, Rick Mears, Dario Franchitti and Helio Castroneves for that scion of IndyCar non-performance, Dr. Jack Miller, the racing dentist.

The five Taliban leaders released will almost certainly return to bite us in the proverbial ass at some future time.

In the meantime, we have another Sergeant in custody in a foreign jail. This individual, Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi remains held in a Mexican jail for what appears to be a "wrong turn" which led him back into Mexico by mistake. Unfortunately, Tahmooressi was in possession of three firearms which, while legally owned in the U. S., are a violation of Mexican law. The return of Tahmooressi to the U. S.. should require nothing more than a high-level phone call; Mexico, after all, is supposedly our ally, (unlike the Taliban.) This should be an easy one for the President, if it even had to go that high up the food chain.

Although this  would seem to be an easy way for President Obama to put "points on the board," (a phrase the administration used to describe the trade for Bergdahl,) . we have heard NOTHING about Sgt. Thamooressi aside from crickets. If not for FoxNews Greta VanSusteren, we might not know of Thamooressi at all.

Time will tell how all of this will be resolved. I strongly suspect that Bergdahl will face court martial once he is returned to health; Of course, President Obama could compound his own felony and pardon the alleged deserter. Yet while Bergdahl remains in the headlines, Sgt. Thamooressi remains jailed in Mexico.  It is indeed a bizarro world.

The Grand Illusion (or) "Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain!"

A lot of words have been spent over the last six weeks lampooning the rollout of the PPACA (a/k/a "Obamacare."Since my last post, we've gotten the Government's "Official Scorecard" as to how many Americans have actually signed up for the program. Let's just say the results were underwhelming. On Wednesday, Health and Human  Services noted that in the period ended 11/2/13, 106,185 people nationwide had "selected a Marketplace plan." Of those, only  about one quarter of those (26,794) were from the Federally run Marketplace. (Source)http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/11/13/latest-obamacare-enrollment-numbers-heat-to-house-vote-on-friday/

But wait, as usual, there's an asterisk here: Those numbers represent those folks who have selected a plan or, basically, put it in their "shopping cart." Anyone who has ever bought anything online knows that it's not "bought" until you check out. In the "shopping cart" does NOT count.  This, however, is no surprise considering some of the voodoo economics and outright falsehoods that have been spread by the perpetrators of this disaster.

Last week, we talked about the problems with the roll out from the point of view of implementation. To be sure, the numbers above reflect the many and varied issues with Heathcare.gov, but seriously, 26,794 against a goal of 500,000? Really? And you really want these people in charge of 1/6 of the American economy? Someone should have been fired by now (and WOULD have been in the private sector.)

The other highlight of this week was President Obama finally accepting responsibility for SOMETHING. Well....Sort of. At the same time he was telling the American people "That's on us," for the failures of the website rollout, he was also saying he had no idea that the system was not ready. That sounds a little more like, "That's on us, but not on me." This quasi-apology has politics written all over it. By accepting some responsibility, he gives Democrats up for re-election next year at least SOME  political cover.

The other thing this does, is to shift focus away from his credibility problem. The early part of the week's news was dominated by "If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period." Wellll....What he REALLY meant to say was, "If you like your plan (and it conforms to all the new regulations and mandatory stuff we arbitrarily want you to buy even if you don't need or want it,) you MIGHT be able to keep it, as long as your policy has not changed since the passage of Obamacare." Its glorious redundancy aside, this trial balloon floated about as well as your average boat anchor. It even failed to pass the smell test among quite a few Democrats.

Apparently, this "misstatement" caught the attention of ABC and CBS, although their colleagues at NBC remained blissfully comatose. Hence, the need to trot the President out for a little damage control. Mea culpa with just a touch of arrogance.

As the story has gained traction, it's become pretty apparent that the President knew that all of the cancellations would be the end result of all the new policy mandates, many of which were add-ons after the initial legislation  was passed. Almost like it was planned that way.

Look, I've written several posts about the problems with the PPACA. My views, unimportant as they may be to anyone else, are no secret. The really fulfilling yet frustrating part of watching this circus is that what is happening is exactly what many of us predicted would happen if this monstrosity became law. Premiums that were supposed to go down are going up, just as anyone with a modicum of common sense could have predicted. People are losing their insurance rather than getting coverage. And it's possible that the worst of this is yet to come next year when the employer mandate kicks in. 

Fact is, when the businesses that employ 50-100 people start getting the dramatic premium increases or cancellation notices for their employees' coverage next fall, my guess is that a lot of them will opt for the penalty and have their employees fend for themselves. What will we do?

Fox News' token liberal Bob Beckel has been an open proponent of a single payer system, and President Obama has made no secret that that would be his choice. Are we coming to a day in the near future when the President strolls into the East Room and says, "The implementation of The Affordable Care Act has been such a mess that we are going to have to scrap it in favor of a single payer, (government controlled) system, for the sake of fairness. It's the only right thing to do." I can almost hear him saying it. And his minions falling into obeisance.

And, with that, the grand illusion of Obamacare will be complete. Game, set, and match to the "Wizard of Ob."

It's all well and good to talk about repeal or defunding of Obamacare, but what can be done in its place? I keep hearing about allowing insurance to be marketed across state lines to improve competition. How about some of you insurance geniuses start working up some real, honest to God numbers for everyone to compare. You guys are second only to car salesmen in your ability to jiggle numbers. Show me what my premium is going to be and how much I can customize my coverage, because it's almost a dead lock certainty that I'm not going to have much choice under the Obama alternative.

And, oh, by the way, you're not just coming up with a selling point, you're essentially fighting for your survival, since the Obama alternative would pretty much put the private health insurance business out of business. Heaven only knows what the long term effect of that might be.

Maybe we should be paying attention to that man behind the curtain after all...

We Spent WHAT?!!! (Someone Call Go Daddy!)

  In my introductory post last week, I promised that this week's entry would be about the PPACA, a/k/a "Obamacare." I'm going to start that discussion this week with the simplest of problems regarding the rollout of Obamacare, that being the fatally flawed website.

Let me start by saying that although I've been surfing around the internet since 1995, I'm no tech wizard about any of this. I'm just a guy asking questions about a website that failed miserably for the first two weeks it was in operation. I consider it the simplest part of the grand Obamacare equation because sooner or later, this problem will get fixed, (no doubt at additional taxpayer expense,)something I can't say for sure about the rest of the law. (More on that next week.)

Depending on whom you read, the Healthcare.gov website, which was built by CGI Federal, a wholly owned U. S. subsidiary of CGI Group Inc., (a Canadian company) cost the taxpayers anywhere from $200 - 645 million. And, (oh, by the way,) it was a no-bid contract.

If, at this point, you are harkening back to the days of the $600 hammer and the $500 toilet seat, you are not alone. So, I did some listening and asked some questions. Many of the website designers said that this was a $1-2 million job. Allowing for an obscene 100% profit margin, call it $2-4 million. One guy who was interviewed by Sean Hannity said he'd be embarrassed to charge more than $500,000 for the job. So, considering the price tag involved, this starts to have the distinct odor of a political payback, speculation about which is running rampant. (Does the name "Solyndra" ring a bell?) Either way, we basically got royally screwed on the price, and the no-bid nature of the contract raises the stench to even higher levels.

After all this and with three years to get this "primo" site up and running, what happens day one? EPIC FAIL. Total crash. Six whole people signed up. Why, at this rate we might get everyone signed up over the next 3000 years or so. Of course, the folks who gave us this wonderful website had no specifics to give us about any of this. The only sound we heard from Washington was "It's working, it's just not up to full capacity yet." Once the site stayed "down" for the better part of the first week, the "It's working," was replaced by crickets.

Several folks who are far more knowledgeable about these issues than I am had varying predictions as to how long it will take to clean up the mess. Best case scenario I heard was the end of November, with the worst case being a total revamp and a matter of months rather than days.

With this situation as it is, one would think that the Administration would extend the personal mandate for a year as they did with the employer mandate. That, however, poses another problem: It puts both mandates in front of the populace in an election year. All those folks who are receiving cancellation notices because their existing policy did not meet the Obamacare "standards" to be "grandfathered" in, would now be getting those notices again one year hence.

No one is yet certain as to what effect the employer mandate will have at this time next year, but my guess is it will be BRUTAL. Considering that the vast majority of health insurance is purchased  by employers for their employees, the impact of that deadline could be much more broadly felt (and painful) than the one we face now. A LOT of small businesses are simply going to say, "I can't afford the new premium, so I'll just pay the fine and let my employees fend for themselves." Imagine how happy all those people are going to be going into next November, an off-year election. This is political MADNESS.

Next, let's look at a couple of things about the site. Most everyone with any tech savvy has bought an airline ticket or a hotel room online. You basically shop around, look at your options and decide on the an itinerary and THEN make your purchase. You're not required to give up any personal information until you come to the "checkout" portion of the transaction.

On the other hand, before you go anywhere on the government site, you have to establish a profile. Before you have even thought about a "buying" decision, you're already giving this site personal information. Not to sound too much like a "conspiracy theorist," but considering the NSA scandals surrounding data mining and such, am I the only one who is just a wee bit skeptical about giving up ANY info just so I can get to where I can see my options?

And of course, with all this flow of information going to the government site, how are we supposed to be certain that our confidential information will be secure? Based on the performance of the site to date, let's just say I would not bet the rent money on it. Sounds like a whole new tune, "Hackers Delight," might be in the offing.

In doing my morning reading before starting this post, I noticed that there was a press release from  CGI essentially saying they had WARNED the administration of the impending crash. Interesting.

How is it possible that with the better part of three years to make sure this site would function, it failed so miserably? If I'd hired GoDaddy (I use them as an example only,) to do a website for me and it crashed and burned the first day out, I'd not only be rather pissed, but I'd be asking for a FULL REFUND of my $600 million right before I found someone else to finish (or completely re-do) the job. How long do you think GoDaddy would stay in business with one or two major screw-ups like this?

And, if I was the guy in charge of making sure this web launch went off seamlessly, I suspect that I'd be working on my resume and worrying about where I was going to get my next job. Instead, NO ONE has been fired or even (to my knowledge) REPRIMANDED for this major blow to the Administration's signature program. Is it possible that maybe someone should have just called GoDaddy in the first place?

At the very least, this speaks to the questionable competence of those in charge and makes you wonder why this was a no-bid job.

As I said at the top, this is the LEAST important issue that faces us all from Obamacare. While it is something that (one would think) could be easily fixed, we'll see how well that goes. My guess is that those who are predicting a two month delay in getting the site up and running are probably closer to the truth than those who think it will be a matter of days.

Next week, I'll go into the more serious problems with the PPACA and the less-than-truthful way in which the Administration has dealt with the reality of Obamacare.

An Introduction

This blog is about politics. If that's not something you enjoy, you are excused.

Ok, now that those folks have left the room, let's get acquainted. If you read "About Me" or have read my sports blog, "Just a Thought" (shameless plug,) you already know that I am conservative, more Republican than anything else. What you don't know, is that I'm a bit of an oddity. Here's how.

1. I am pro-choice.

 

I detest abortion. That does NOT make it my right, or the Federal Government's to deny a woman that choice in the first trimester of pregnancy. Existing law subsequent to Roe v. Wade allows it and it should stay that way. Far too many people have used the fear tactic of "If so and so is elected, they will take away a woman's right to choose." Not true. Folks who are elected to the Presidency may choose Supreme Court Justices, but once elevated to the highest court in the land, the Justices are the only ones who can change Court precedent. If you study the history of the Supreme Court, you'll understand why I personally think Roe v. Wade is safe.  First, "The Supremes" do not like to overturn their brethren. Second, the only other way to overturn Roe would be with a Constitutional Amendment and the chances of that are even less.

I remember the days when abortion was illegal. I remember the horror stories of black market, back alley abortions. I don't want those creeps to ever be allowed to practice their brand of butchery anymore. Period.

That being said, if a woman wants to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, it is not MY job to pay for it through my tax dollars. There are ample means available, many at very reasonable prices, to forestall pregnancy without getting to the extreme step of abortion. If you allow yourself to get into that condition, it becomes your responsibility, not mine. I suggest you consult the father who SHARES that responsibility.

At the same time, there are thousands of couples who would be more than willing to adopt. Every year we hear stories of people going to the ends of the earth to adopt children from foreign countries and not all of these stories have happy endings. At some point in the process of abortion, serious consideration should be made for adoption.

2. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my business.

Nor is it the business of the Federal government. I am not a huge fan of gay marriage. For a long time, I thought that civil unions were the answer. However, the business community's refusal to allow
"life partners" to share in benefits such as health insurance has forced me to reconsider.

Where I have a problem is with exposing first through fourth graders to the discussion of such topics as "Heather has two mommies." In my youth, sex education was a subject that was never broached before 6th grade or junior high school, if then. From my perspective, we all survived. Now, it seems the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. I mean really: first graders??? How about we worry about teaching them to read, write, spell, and do math before we try and give them the lowdown on "adult" relationships.

3. The idea that we are going to round up 11 million illegal aliens and deport them is foolish.

Not only is it foolish, it would be a huge waste of time and resources to try. First of all, the 11 million number is probably ludicrously low. My personal suspicion is that the number of illegals is probably closer to 20 million. Fact is, they're here and quite likely to stay. Having said that, I believe that if you are here illegally, you have no right to vote. Nor do you have a right to state or Federal benefits, in-state tuition, or government assistance in any form or fashion. If you choose to work here "off the books" and not pay taxes, you and your employer should be penalized if you are caught. If it is your desire to stay, you should at least make some effort to assimilate our culture and speak our language. We're not going to cede Texas or California back to Mexico regardless of how much you shout and wave your Mexican flags, so get over it.

Now that I've enraged a substantial number of people, let me acknowledge that our system of legal immigration is broken. It is the zenith of stupidity to ask folks to wait years and years for a chance to be an American citizen, all the while accepting those who have chosen to circumvent our laws and handing them their piece of the American dream, healthcare, and welfare benefits. Far more intelligent people than I will have to work  together to come up with an acceptable solution. In order to keep the politics out of this process, voting rights should never be granted until citizenship is granted. Too many of our best and brightest have given their lives to preserve this constitutional republic to cheapen that right.

OK. Now that I've pissed off half of the Tea Party as well as most liberals, let's get down to some basic principles I believe are important.

Our Federal Government does one thing very well (and not much else.)

With a very few exceptions, our Federal government keeps us safe. That is their Job 1. Sure, there may be some inefficiencies and redundancies, but by and large we're not speaking Russian, Chinese, or Farsi here, so they've done their job. The reason why is simple: Our military has its own infrastructure and, to some extent, bureaucracy. These guys do this for thirty years or better and it sure as Hell isn't for the money. Their advancement in their careers is based on achievement much more than simple seniority or political ass-kissing. And let's face it, when it comes to killing people and breaking things, our guys are the best. It speaks volumes that our greatest failure as an armed force was Viet Nam, when that war was micro-managed by, you guessed it, the politicians.

Beyond that.... To use a car analogy, if a well run business such as Apple, Microsoft, or Exxon-Mobil
was a car, you might call it a Mercedes or a Cadillac; If today's Federal Government was a car, it would be a Yugo. You can list the failures and they are many: The Post Office loses so much money that it's quite possible they may eliminate home delivery entirely. Stamps, which when I was in high school cost a nickel, now cost almost ten times that. and it's STILL not enough to keep them solvent. Social Security is sufficiently stressed that without some major reform, our children may not have it at all. Medicare and Medicaid are in similar shape.

How is this possible? Many would tell you that Government has no accountability for its failures because unlike business, where achievement of a stated goal and efficiency in the process is virtually mandatory, Government has no such incentive. Too often, success in government is signified by the increase in the size (and budget) of a particular government entity. While "better, faster, and cheaper" is the mantra of most business, at times it seems as though government's catchphrase is "more employees and bigger budgets." Until that mindset is changed, it is unlikely that government's efficiency will improve.

Government is too big and spends too much.

Nobody said my principles had to be original. Folks have been decrying the downhill snowball that has been the growth of government since FDR was President. As this snowball has achieved critical mass, the Federal Government has become more and more a part of everyone's life. In my lifetime alone, I've seen six huge bureaucracies born: Housing, Health and Human Services, Education, Environmental Protection, Energy, and Homeland Security.

Each of these new cabinet level departments has grown exponentially and as they have done so, they've become more intrusive into our daily lives.

I am pretty sure that President Nixon had no idea the monster he was creating when he brought the Environmental Protection Agency into being. I was a junior in high school when we had the first "Earth Day." It seemed like such a "today" idea back then. A government agency to look out for Mother Earth. Stopping pollution of air and water was a noble cause. As the bureaucracy grew, however, the nice little happy face agency became an angry, money grubbing monster bent on stopping anything that even looked cross-eyed at the snail darter or the spotted owl.

I get that we don't want any more "Love Canals;" I don't get "Cap and Trade." I get that we need to protect wildlife from man-made extinction; I don't get, "Electric rates will necessarily skyrocket," (thank you, Barack Obama.) I get clean water and air; I don't get "Carbon Tax" and it's ugly stepsister, "Carbon Tax Credits."

And this is only one agency.  I won't even go into the current corrupt mess involving the most feared agency of all, The Internal Revenue Service. That's another topic for another post.

And spending? If I spent money the way the Federal Government spends money, in no time I'd be out on the street, homeless. And believe me, the world notices when we as a nation have our credit rating downgraded. Unfortunately, our concept of a Government that is the "be all and end all for all," is almost certain to lead to further downgrades and a potential default. It is absolutely imperative that we get our financial house in order which is why...

It's time for a balanced budget amendment.

I don't think there's any other way to get Washington on board with financial responsibility. Both parties have a wink, wink, nod, nod relationship to spending. They'll promise that if we give them more in revenue (spell that t-a-x-e-s,) they'll cut spending. They're good at getting the tax part done, but for some strange reason, the spending never gets cut.

If it was my job to write such an amendment, I would add in the following idea: For every new or increased tax dollar in the budget, two dollars must be cut from spending. In other words, if you want to spend $1 million to study the mating rituals of the spider monkey, (that pet project for your contributor-constituent,), you'd better find $2 million you can cut somewhere else, or forget it!

It's really not rocket science. You simply can't consistently outspend your income. We can't do it as individuals, nor can we do it in our businesses; The Government shouldn't either. Unfortunately, we've established an entrenched group of professional politicians on both sides of the aisle who think they simply must bring home the goodies for their constituencies in order to perpetuate their power and keep their job. So maybe it's...

Time to seriously consider term limits and end the "lifetime pension."

Our founders had no concept of the professional legislator. Nor should we. 12 years is plenty of time for one person spend in the Congress. Two terms in the Senate, 6 terms in the House, or any combination of the two adding up to 12 years might lead to a legislative body less beholden to special interests and more connected to their "bosses," the people who elected them to begin with.

It is absolutely unconscionable that we give these professional legislators a lifetime pension. We do not give such a benefit to the individuals who make the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield, and I firmly believe those who fight and die for our liberty are far more worthy of the remuneration. If you want to start cutting money out of the budget with the hope of controlling what we spend, this is where I'd start.

Our recent foray into socialized medicine, (next week's topic,) tells me that it is also time the Congress be required to adhere to the laws they pass. The very idea that our "employees" be able to exempt themselves from laws they propose for the rest of us is ridiculous.



Those are just a few things of many that we'll talk about over the coming weeks and months. You are more than welcome to subscribe to this blog, even if you're a liberal. All I ask is that you prove you can think. It is my plan to post this blog on Saturdays on a weekly basis. Comments are welcome from anyone, but I won't dignify trolls with a response. We've gotten away from being able to discuss issues rationally, (without name calling,) and I want this blog to be a forum for just that. Who knows, we might find that there are more areas where we can (at least) understand each others' positions, if not agree.