The Update

With More Workers Planning To Never Retire, It Is Time To Reform Social Security

2011-12-12T05:30:00.000-08:00

You’re going to have to keep working, ya slackers! At least more of you than had planned on it anyway. A recent survey found that 1 in 5 Americans now say they plan to never retire. While some of that 20% is surely the people like me who just don’t plan to stop working at any point as long as they can help it, I am sure there is a good percentage that are not going to be working straight to the grave by choice.

With a growing number of Americans facing this same choice, or fate, maybe it is time for us to take a good, long, hard look at our socialist retirement system. By the time I am at retirement age, there will be huge segments of the population that will not be able to survive on the gub’ment checks alone and will either be forced or choose to keep working. What’s wrong with that? Well, the way the socialist retirement system is currently set up, the more you earn, the less of the social security money you paid into the socialist system you get to keep. At one point, you can earn so much that you get absolutely no social security money at all. I hope to be in a spot where I have this problem one day.

Regardless of where I may end up in the year 2041 (the year the socialists want me to retire), I really think now is the time to reconsider all of this socialist retirement craziness. Perhaps there was a time in this country where we needed to ensure that people retired by penalizing them for earning money once they reached social security age, but I think the landscape of America, it’s economy, the world’s economy, and life here on planet Earth have all changed so much that we need to rethink this antiquated non-sense about incentivizing people to stop working when they get to a certain age.

I am paying money into Social Security right now, but if I choose to keep working, especially if I am in a spot where I continue to earn more and more with each passing year as long as I am of sound enough mind and body, I will be earning the most in my lifetime, right at the time that I am supposed to start getting back all of the money that I will have paid into Social Security for 52 ½ years. The more I earn, the less I get back, so how much is that going to suck? I get it – once I’m destitute or disabled, and what not, it will be money I can live off of, but let’s say for instance, I keep working, keep earning money, keep living life like I am planning to do right up until my number is up (it does happen, people)… I may be in a spot where I don’t ever get a dime of MY social security money back (It is MY money, you know). That means that I will have been one huge benefactor to the U.S. Taxernment and its socialist Social Security retirement program.

I get that most of you are going to retire – some of you may even take the hit financially to retire early – and more power to you – but me, the crazy nut-job who wants to keep working ponders….Shouldn’t I have a choice? Shouldn’t I have some other option rather than giving all of this money to the socialists in Taxington. Expecially when you consider the very real possibility that I may get only 85 cents on the dollar back if I actually do stop working, and possibly, no cents on the dollar back if I actually do keep working? Don’t penalize me for working, America! In what world does that make sense?

Happy Two Days Before Black Friday!

2011-11-23T05:30:00.000-08:00

You know when I don’t work? Nights and weekends. Well, actually I do, but I’m not required to go into the office at that time. You know why? Because I found a job that doesn’t require me to go into work on nights and weekends. You know why? Because I used to have a job that required me to go in on nights and weekends, and I didn’t like that so much, so I got a different job. You guessed it…a whole series of jobs that did not require me to go in on nights and weekends.

I’m not trying to be heartless here, but again, I go back to the debate about working part-time at Wal-Mart with no health insurance. At any point when you were applying for the job did they tell you that you were going to have health insurance, then all of the sudden, take it away? No, they did not. I am sure they told you all along that your part-time job at Wal-Mart did not come with health insurance. So, why, then, are you sitting there with a part-time job at Wal-Mart, surprised that you do not have health insurance?

You work in retail. That’s the job you have. For whatever reason, that is the fact (I spent the first three years of my working life in retail, full-time while going to school, and even had to join a union for my first job, so there’s where I get off talking about working in retail). The store you work at is open on Black Friday. You can’t, at this point, sit there and be surprised that the store you work at wants you to work nut-shit-crazy hours on Black Friday. You didn’t see that coming? You somehow work in retail and do not understand what Black Friday is, and somehow never took notice that the starting gates open earlier and earlier each year? You somehow surprised? Really? The 5AM sale that became the 4AM sale that became the 3AM sale? You didn’t see where that was going?

Ask all the folks who are not in retail about a job that requires them to work nut-shit-crazy hours once or twice a year, and trust me, you probably won’t get a lot of sympathy from them. Just to clarify what I am getting at, most of us non-retail employees, especially those on salary instead of hourly, end up having to do that a little more than once or twice a year. Ask us about overtime pay and our 15 minutes breaks through the day too, so we can laugh at you. Do I even need to bring up the whole you work in retail and are lucky to be one of the 85% of people who do who actually still have a job in this economy thing? And don’t get me wrong, I get it’s a holiday. I missed many a holiday, birthday, etc. when I was working retail, but I also understood that it was part of the job I had at the time. Again, you can’t take a job working retail and be surprised when you are working nights, weekends and holidays at this point.

And while I’m on the soapbox, I have a little message for the consumers who are complaining on behalf of these retail workers. Really? So, year after year, you buy into the whole Black Friday deal, allowing these retailers to bait you into the store in deplorable, dangerous, and in some cases, deadly conditions, allow them to bait you into stampeding over each other to save some money on let’s face it, crap you don’t need to survive anyway, and now this is the line? Making someone miss part of Thanksgiving Day so they can work that night? If there was no one willing to show up at a Wal-Mart at 10PM on Thanksgiving, the stores wouldn’t be doing this. Yet, they can drop the prices on some key items, call it Black Friday, and there you go, off to camp out in front of Best Buy for three days. But this is the line that they can’t cross? 3AM was OK, but, no, not midnight or 10PM, huh? Sorry to break it to you folks, but consumers that buy into the concept of Black Friday are just as much a part of this as the retailers.

Again, America, we cannot sit here and be surprised that this year some of our largest retailers are opening as early as 10PM on Thanksgiving night, expecting their employees to work and expecting consumers to come in, risking life and limb, to save some money on all the stuff that they think they need to have in order to live. Like you didn’t see that one coming, America.

How Dell Changed A Brand Loyalist's Mind...

2011-11-16T05:30:00.000-08:00

Customer loyalty boils down to personal experience. No matter what a business’s size, who is on its executive team, its market cap, etc., etc., consumers become loyal to a brand and company based on their own personal experience. I started reading an article about Michael Dell that starts off with his story: Founded the business as a computer upgrade firm in his dorm at U of Texas when he was 19; at 27, in 1992, he became the youngest CEO ever on the Fortune 500; started with personal computer upgrades, moved to selling personal systems, moved to customizing those systems, then into selling personal systems over the net at the same time as expanding into servers. Now, in 2011 with $26.6 billion in market cap, Dell Computer is getting ready to expand into the Cloud and software markets. That’s a great story, and I’m not knocking Michael Dell for his success, but the fact remains that before I could even finish reading the article on Michael Dell, I find myself typing my own article out on an HP Compaq laptop that I had to buy when my fifth and final Dell laptop took a crap on me during its manufacturer warranty period.

So, regardless of Dell’s success, and regardless of Michael Dell’s fantastic, successful story, I am a customer who purchased five dell laptops from 2001 to 2011, yet I am also a customer who went out in 2011 and bought an HP Compaq instead. Why? Well, because I finally had it, that’s why. I truly believe that my Dell Inspiron 8200 that I bought in 2001 would still be going today had I not spilled a bottle of water in it. I only wish I could say the same about the subsequent four Dells I purchased after that. Each time, the screen failed on me, once at three years, once at two years, once at a year and a half, and now, this last time, after nine months. So, in a decade, a decade that saw immense growth and expansion for Dell, my personal experience has been the opposite – the other direction – my laptops have been lasting a shorter and shorter period of time – a reduction, not an expansion, in my own personal experience with Dell.

Top that off with two other things I have a problem with, and I have made my case for why, while being one of the strongest brand loyalists I know, I have changed my laptop brand after 10 years. Thing #1 – Customer Service. I remember way back when, when I had to call Dell customer service and it was a pleasant, easy experience. “Yes, sir, no problem, sir, right away, sir, we’ll get that fixed for you immediately, sir. That power cord failed under warranty, we’ll send you one out at no cost immediately and I apologize for the inconvenience, sir.” Ten years later, while the customer service people did their best, I could also tell their hands were tied by new policies that probably didn’t exist ten years ago. “Well, while your laptop is in warranty and covered, I can only send someone out to look at it if you pay for an additional year’s warranty, or pay for the service call. Other than that, you are going to have to send it in to us, but the good news is that it will only take 10 days!” Ten days? In today’s business world, I am without a laptop for 10 days? Thanks, Dell.

Thing #2 – Dell’s Philosophy. This philosophy changed, and I think that is the reason for the dip in quality and Thing #1 above. Every Dell laptop has the Dell logo on the lid. My first and second Dell both had the logo positioned in a manner that when the laptop was closed and in my lap, the logo was right-side up for me, but was upside down to the person walking by or standing in front of me (the person who had not bought a Dell laptop yet). My third, fourth and fifth Dell laptops were the opposite – the logo was right-side up when opened and being seen by the non-Dell-owner-passer-by and upside down to me, the idiot who had purchased the laptop when it was sitting closed in my lap. What does that tell me? Somewhere along the way, Dell became much less interested in servicing the customer who had already purchased their product and much more interested in selling the next laptop to the person who had not purchased one yet.

As I said…Personal experience. Ten years ago, I was so excited to buy that first big $2000 laptop from Dell that was just as fast and robust as a desktop. The day before I spilled water in it, I would have told you to buy nothing but Dells. Yet, two years later, after Dell #2 crapped out on me, I was a little bit less vocal with my praise for Dell. By Dell #3 and #4, I had stopped talking about the brand. And now, as Dell #5, freshly back from the repair shop and its 10 day vacation sits collecting dust as my back-up machine, and I sit typing on this HP Compaq, singing a very different tune. So, guess what I am going to say if someone asks me if they should buy a Dell now?

Heartless Republicans By Congressman John Campbell

2011-11-03T05:20:00.000-07:00

Those of us who have spent our political careers trying to keep taxes low and rein in government overspending are often called "heartless" by the opposition. I remember a time in the California Assembly when a Democratic colleague went to the floor and accused me of killing children, an accusation which she was forced to retract. Another time on that same floor, a different Democrat inquired how blood ran through my body since I clearly had no heart to pump it.
It is unfortunate that many in society seem to find fiscal responsibility and caring for the needy to be mutually exclusive objectives. It is so unfortunate because it is not true. In fact, I firmly believe that one is necessary to do the other.

As regular readers of this missive know, I believe that it is our moral imperative to care for those in need around us. But, where I differ from some of our more liberal friends is on the means to accomplish that goal. President Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty" back in the 60s. Tons of new programs were set up and tens of trillions of dollars have been spent on this "war" in the intervening 40+ years. And, after all this time, effort and money, the poverty rate in the United States is only down 0.4% from where it stood when Johnson made his declaration. Had this been a shooting war, we would have withdrawn or regrouped years ago. Had this been a business objective, the strategy would have long since been thrown out and restructured.

Democrats and Republicans do not have disparate objectives here. We only differ on how to accomplish the objective. Frankly, whether it’s the needs of the poor or a military matter or an environmental policy, throwing money at a problem without achieving results does not exhibit compassion. In fact, doing so can even be counterproductive to the very goal we all wish to achieve.
Therefore, there are 3 principles which I use to guide my decision making on caring for the needy in our communities:

1. Accountability: We always talk about providing for the poor, the sick and the disabled. Again, there is no disagreement that this is a worthy goal. But, the fact is that many programs set up to help these people are taken advantage of by the corrupt, the dishonest, and the lazy. It may come as a shock to some of us, but not all human beings are good and honest. When someone who is able to work simply decides not to and takes money intended for those who cannot work, he or she takes that money directly from the mouths of the needy. Programs must have the ability to actively exclude the one group in order to provide for the truly needy, or they will not succeed in their mission.

2. Community: No matter where you live in America, you have needy people nearby. It could be a homeless person or a person whose home was just destroyed by natural disaster. It could be the victim of a crime or the victim of a terrible disease. It could be an orphan or a widow. And, yes, there is tremendous human suffering occurring all over the world. We have compassion for it and we want to stop it. But, charity begins at home. I have always felt that our first obligation is to our family, our friends, our neighbors, and our community. Afterwards, we can look to the rest of the world. America is a wealthy nation. But, it is abundantly clear that we are not rich enough to police the world with our military or to feed and clothe the world with our tax dollars. Federal policy should not ignore starving children in Africa, but our first obligation should always be to hungry Americans. Those of us who believe in strong borders and firmly enforced immigration laws hold this as a fundamental maxim. We cannot have every needy person from other countries come to America illegally and then demand free benefits or expect to be taken care of for life. Our boat will sink if we do that, and then we cannot help anybody.

3. Private Partnerships: Government organizations give aid to the needy. And, faith-based organizations give aid to the needy. I have closely observed both. The faith-based organizations, because of the depth of commitment and passion guiding their service, are undeniably more effective and deliver a much more personal and lasting impact than a bureaucratic program. That is not to say that all aid should be dispensed by faith-based groups. But, we should certainly be supporting, and not hindering, private and faith-based aid groups so that they can grow and expand their philanthropic mission in this nation.

The Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on compassion. When Democratic politicians accuse Republicans of "heartlessness" because the latter are merely disagreeing about effective methods of help, they are wrong. It is just as wrong as when Republicans accuse anti-war Democrats of not being patriotic. The fact is that it is neither unpatriotic nor cruel to have a different view on how to deal with threats to our security or the problem of poverty.

And, yes, my doctor has recently confirmed the existence of a heart beating within my chest.

Until next time, I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell

Were We Oversold On The American Dream Of Home Ownership?

2011-11-02T05:20:00.000-07:00

A recent Wall Street Journal article gave an example of the dramatic difference a disciplined investor would have experience if he would have invested in the stock market in 1980 instead of buying a home:

"In 1980 an investor considered buying a $99,550 home that by 2010 would have increased in value by an average of 3.6 percent per year to $296,820. If that investor would have put his 20 percent down payment of $19,910 and the normal homeownership expenses (above the cost of renting) over the years into the Dow Jones Industrial Index instead, his portfolio in 2010 could have been valued at $1,800,016. To put it plainly, the stocks would have been worth more than the house by $1,503,196."

Unemployment Numbers Not As Bad For College Graduates

2011-11-01T05:20:00.000-07:00

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment numbers are much lower for those who graduated from college. While unemployment among those who did not graduate from high school is at 13%, that number drops to 10% for high school graduates, and then down to 4.5% for those with a bachelor's degree and higher.

From Assemblyman Donald P. Wagner: Tax Increases Fuel Job Growth?

2011-10-12T05:20:00.000-07:00

I have a question. I mean this in all sincerity. I ask it without intending a drop of cynicism. My question is this: How do tax increases create jobs?

The question is prompted by the governor's news conference on August 25. It is no secret that California has a serious jobs problem. Our unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation, and that understates the problem as our jobless rate does not include (1) those who have given up searching for jobs, and (2) those who are underemployed and seek full time work but cannot find it because of our anemic economy. Persistent joblessness destroys our economy, our communities, and our families. For that reason, the governor and Democrat leadership have promised to focus on the jobs problem in the last two week of the legislative session.

It is about darn time. Months and months ago, the GOP proposed dozens of pro-jobs and pro-economic growth bills. But, as I detailed in my last column, the Democrats killed all of those bills. And now they want to focus on jobs? Welcome to the issue, guys. Better late than never.

Except maybe not so, which brings me back to taxes. The governor and Democrat leadership held a news conference on the 25th to announce this new-found concept of focusing on jobs and to outline their jobs recovery plan. Amazingly, it amounted pretty much to just a call for new taxes. Sure there were a couple of targeted tax cuts in the package, but overall, it is more of the same from the Democrats.

So I ask, how do tax increases create jobs? Forget for a moment that raising taxes was the governor's plan to solve California's budget crisis, and then the solution to the prison overcrowding problem, and then, said the governor, was the way to attack our so-called "wall of debt." Now, apparently, tax increases are the way to create jobs.

In short, Jerry Brown and the other Democrats finally have a "jobs plan" and it looks a lot like their other plans to solve our other problems: raise taxes.

Who knew one simple idea could do so much? Sadly, though, it will not work. Raising taxes is not a serious policy to grow the economy. It is only a serious policy to grow government. Raising taxes does not create jobs. It merely transfers wealth from the productive class to a growing government. If tax increases create jobs, why not confiscate all private wealth - one hundred percent tax rates for all income levels should just about do it - and watch the jobs explosion.

Of course, the idea is preposterous, as preposterous as the latest Democratic jobs plan.

Government "creates" productive, private sector jobs only by leaving more money in the hands of . . . the private sector. Individuals know better how to spend their own money than does the government. Sacramento should get out of the way of entrepreneurs and business owners. Let them keep their money to hire more workers or make capital improvements to grow the company. That is a real jobs plan, one that will work and one that my Republican colleagues in the Legislature and I have gotten behind. Democratic business as usual, i.e., their single idea with its repeatedly failed promise to solve all of societies' problems, has not worked and will not work. I suppose it's good that the Democrats at least notice the jobs problem now. But like so much out of Sacramento, hold on to your wallet while government tries to fix that problem.

Assemblymember Donald P. Wagner

From Congressman John Campbell: The Song of the Shopkeeper

2011-10-06T05:20:00.000-07:00

During the August recess, the captivating Mrs. Campbell and I always go to Carmel for the annual car show. Early one morning up there, I watched several shopkeepers sweeping the sidewalk in front of their stores. I got to thinking that shopkeepers must have been doing this for centuries, if not millennia. Several weeks later, I was down in Fredericksburg, Virginia and watched another shopkeeper carefully rearranging a display in the window. It struck me that these acts represented pride in one's work and one's place of work. No work rules made them do it. They just did it because those shops were theirs and they take pride in what is theirs. And, I thought, it has ever been thus.

When Mr. Obama talks about the economy and jobs, he invariably mentions teachers and firefighters. Fine. Those are noble professions. But, I can't help but think that he does so because teachers and firefighters almost always are employees of some government entity and are almost always compelled by law to join a union as a condition of having the job. And, they pay forced union dues, some of which will be involuntarily sent to the campaign coffers of politicians they do not support. It seems the President favors those who work for the government or are in a union, or preferably, both.

Well, Mr. President, most of America does not work for the government nor are they members of a union. They are salesmen and clerks and mechanics and…yes…shopkeepers. And, their contribution to society is no more or less than that of those other professions.

Now, most of you know that I spent most of my working life in the retail car business. I did that for more than twice as long as I have been serving in politics. Maybe that explains my affinity for the shopkeepers. A car dealership is, after all, a shop.

But, no one ever talks about that guy on the corner selling yogurt or the independent bookstore run by that woman who is still making a go of it in the face of Kindles and such. The shopkeeper has a heck of a job. They take a lot of risks. Signing a lease on the bet that they can sell enough stuff to pay the rent. Choosing what they think you will buy for more money than they paid for it. Figuring out how to spend limited advertising dollars and how to track whether the ads actually bring people to the store. Investing money they saved for years to buy the inventory. Selling at a loss the things that didn't sell the way they thought they might. And, of course, they have to hire employees and do all the paperwork the government requires for taxes and worker's compensation insurance and God knows what else. They often work 6 or 7 days a week, because their shops are usually open all those days. They create a pension by saving enough of what they make. They buy their own health insurance.
Nothing guarantees their job except their own personal effort and industry. They still have a boss - it’s called the customer who can put them out of business in a moment.

When others in my current profession talk about their defense of those powerful interests that represent certain professions, I think that's fine for them. But for me, the unsung shopkeeper represents those Americans who take risks, work hard, take care of themselves and maybe someone else too, and want the opportunity to succeed. They are small businesspeople. It is they who make the economy run. And, I hold them up with the greatest of respect. It is they who are ever in my thoughts as I make decisions on those cold and lonely nights in Washington. It is that entrepreneur for whom I fight the daily fight against socialism, blind ideology, and those who would steal their independence and freedom.

So, I sing the song of the shopkeeper. Their job is not a new one. It is as old as civilization. They are our neighbors, friends, and family members. They don't make noise. They make growth. They are a part of the fabric of society. And, their toil is every bit as honorable in God's eyes as anyone else's.
Next time you walk past a clean sidewalk in front of a store, remember that it didn't get that way by itself. Behind those windows, someone is putting their all into what is both their livelihood and one tiny, but critical part of our economy and our way of life. May we give them shelves full of opportunity in the years ahead.

Until next time, I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell

Upon Constantly Working's 11th Anniversary

2011-10-01T05:20:00.000-07:00

Today, Constantly Working quietly celebrates its 11th anniversary. It was 11 years ago today that I made the decision that in the coming three months, I was either going to start a business or leave my job at the time for a new job. As fate would have it, I ended up going down the road of starting a business with a business partner and would be relying on that business as my sole source of income in just seven short months. Then, in just another 5 years and 9 months, I would determine that it was time to go back to working for someone else. That was not an easy decision to make, and quite frankly, I put it off for about two years longer than I should have. Today, I can say, however, without any doubt, it was the right decision to make.

Constantly Working, after a name change, a couple of address changes, and a pretty significant officer change that I can only equate to something along the lines of an extremely amicable divorce, still exists, and while it’s a very tiny amount, is set to turn a profit for 2011, the first time in eight years. While I am only serving two customers in my spare time at night and on weekends, this small, profitable year has been very therapeutic. I own a very (very, very) small business with my wife that has an 11 year history, somehow (miraculously – no thanks to a good volume of personal funding by me) has a perfect, albeit small, credit history, and as long as I can make a solid $900 a year, will be profitable.

Needless to say, my actual income earner, my job, remains my complete and total focus for about 50 to 55 hours a week, and Teresa continues to put in more hours at her job than I do, but as I sit today, our bills getting paid, the business being a pretty sizable debtee, as opposed to the pretty sizable debtor it was 4 ½ years ago, I am looking to the future with great promise. Naturally, we, like all of you, worry about the state of the U.S. economy, politics, and how long it will take to see economic prosperity again, but when I look back at how things could have gone for us over the past eight years, I think we are still sitting pretty, regardless.

While I could probably fill an entire book with the lessons I have learned on this 11 year journey (and maybe I will someday), there are a few quick points that I can make. First, never tie yourself financially on a personal level to your business or to anyone that you go into business with. I imagine you can see the reasons why. Secondly, while you may have always done everything yourself in the past, when you start a business, you cannot continue to do everything yourself. You need to rely on experts and you need to rely on expert staff to help you build and grow. My job has definitely helped to drive home that message. You cannot start a business with the intent of it being your sole source of income and then try to do everything (sales, marketing, accounting, management, delivery) with just two people. And most importantly, whatever the cost, no matter what, handle yourself in a manner by which at any given point you could sit down across the table from any given person and be able to know that you did the right thing.

So, as I look to the future, I am honestly quite happy. Happy to be working at the best company I have ever worked for (quite honestly, including the one that I own), and to be working with and for such a great group of people. Happy that this very, very, very small business is once again a positive source of joy in my life as opposed to the burden it was when it was what put food on the table; happy to have such a wonderful wife, wonderful family, and wonderful friends; happy to know that today, in every capacity, my deals are square, my cards are on the table, and my deck of cards is cut every time; happy to have my two wonderful customers that have, without knowing it, renewed my faith in this small, little business; and above all, happy to report to you that tomorrow’s dawn will be even brighter than was today’s.

From Congressman John Campell: US Postal Service

2011-09-27T05:20:00.000-07:00

From Congressman John Campbell on the US Postal Service"

"Neither Snow nor Sleet nor Dark of Night...: We all are familiar with the rest of the variations on this phrase describing the dedication of the US Postal Service (USPS) in delivering the mail. Well, snow and rain may not be keeping the Post Office from delivering the mail, but financial problems within the USPS may soon halt delivery.

This has not gotten much publicity, but the USPS is in real trouble. The USPS is an independent, but wholly-owned entity of the federal government. It is designed to be self-supporting such that the rates it charges will cover the costs of delivering the mail. This worked for a long time. Obviously, for over 200 years. But, not so now. After earning modest profits from 2004-2006, the agency started hemorrhaging money in 2007. Between 2007 and 2010, it has lost over $20 billion. These losses are now accelerating in 2011 with a loss, in the first 3 quarters of this year, amounting to $5.7 billion. The USPS has already borrowed the maximum $15 billion it is allowed to borrow under the law and has already deferred another $4 billion in payments to its employee retirement fund to cover these losses. The Continuing Resolution adopted by the House last week will have the federal government make another roughly $7 billion in payments for retirement and worker's compensation that the USPS does not have the cash to make. In other words, the USPS has run a deficit of $26 billion combined from the last several years, which has been covered by borrowing from various sources, and there is no turn-around in sight. The fact is that the USPS has both run out of cash and borrowing ability, and will be completely out of cash by the middle of next year.

Why is this happening? Part of the reason is the impact of e-mail, Fed-Ex and other competitors, and the general economy on mail volume. Mail volume has dropped from a peak of 213.1 billion pieces in 2006 to 170.6 billion in 2010. That's a drop of nearly 20%. Much of this drop is unlikely to be reversed as the alternatives to "snail mail" increase and as younger generations increasingly communicate online or by text or cell phone. Fifteen years ago, these missives would have been "snail mailed" to you. But, volume alone does not account for the entire problem. 80% of the costs incurred by the USPS are employment costs. Although its employees are covered under the same benefits package as all other federal employees (including members of Congress), they are required to contribute a smaller share of their benefits than all other federal employees (including members of Congress). Recent law changes now require that they “catch-up” on their pension contributions and "fully fund" their retirement plan. This will require a payment of between $5-6 billion every year through 2016. And, postal workers are shielded from layoffs. Furthermore, the law places a lot of restrictions on the USPS's ability to increase revenue through price increases, required subsidies, and permitted advertising.

OK, I know that I may have gotten a little bean-counterish on you all right there with all the numbers and such. But, many of you like this stuff! Anyway, if I lost you for the last two paragraphs, come back to me now for the bottom line here.

In other words, this is a classic business failure scenario. New technology has made obsolete much of this business’ core products. An intractable union refuses to adjust above-market benefit packages and requires unsustainable staffing levels. Government restrictions and tradition prevent the business from pursuing other avenues of income generation. New competitors are more flexible and have lower costs. Sounds just like the car and steel businesses (amongst others), huh? And, a classic business failure needs a classic business turnaround.

This means expenses have to be cut, unprofitable business units discontinued, and new profitable ones started. Services will need to be changed, employee costs reduced and renegotiated, and the USPS must become more lean and agile. Some of you may think that rates can just be raised and that will take care of it all. But, it will not. There are too many alternatives to mail these days, and increasing rates too much will result in further declines in mail volume, which will spiral into further losses. The structure of the business needs to change. But, since this is a wholly-owned government entity, many such changes unfortunately require Congressional action, which is action that rarely moves quickly.

Darrell Issa (R-CA) is chairman of the relevant committee in the House with jurisdiction over the USPS. He and Dennis Ross (R-FL) have introduced the "Issa-Ross Plan to Save the Postal Service". I will not go into detail here, but you can read details at the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s website. Darrell Issa is a guy who created and ran a number of businesses, and I am glad that someone with his experience is in charge here. Congress needs to vote on a bill like this in the next few months to prevent either total collapse or another huge taxpayer bailout costing many, many billions of dollars- and which will only postpone the inevitable.

I support the Issa-Ross plan as a good start. But, in order to be able to respond more quickly to new technologies and a changing environment, the USPS may need to be spun off from the government in one way or another in order to be free of the necessity of congressional action for every business plan change. Likewise, it may also need to be free of government civil service restrictions for employees in the future. However, what kind of entity this should be will be the subject of much debate in the months to come.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to lick a stamp now……just for old times’ sake.

Until next time, I remain respectfully."

And You Can't Figure Out How They Hacked Your Account?

2011-09-26T05:20:00.000-07:00

A data security firm analyzed 32 million passwords that a hacker stole from an application developer called rockyou.com and published the 10 most commonly used passwords:

1. 123456

2. 12345

3. 123456789

4. password

5. iloveyou

6. princess

7. rockyou (the name of the site)

8. 1234567

9. 12345678

10. abc123

Even The IRS Knows How Bad The Tax Code Is

2011-09-12T05:20:00.000-07:00

With Americans spending 6.1 billion hours per year preparing their taxes, the IRS has tries to help out a bit by having a national taxpayer advocate who, among other duties, reports back to Congress annually and "whose job it is to help taxpayers having problems with the agency." Back in March, it was reported in Money Magazine that the report included the following facts:

- Over the past 10 years there have been 4,428 changes to the tax code - which averages out to more than one per day.

- The code is so complex that nine out of ten Americans have someone fo their taxes for them or rely on tax software.

- The code's complexity often leads honest Joes to make costly errors, while sophosticated taxpayers find loopholes to exploit.

- The code is so long that no one is certain exactly how long it is.

Why I Won't Be Crossing Picket Lines This Time Around During The Grocery Workers' Strike

2011-08-23T05:34:00.000-07:00

Here we go again with the grocery workers’ strike, Southern California….grocery workers are set to strike against the very places that are crazy enough to hire union workers: Albertson’s, Ralph’s and Vons. Remember how it was last time? Stater Brothers was packed, the smaller independent stores saw a great uptick in business that they are still enjoying today, and people crossing picket lines to buy food for their families with their hard-earned money, or people who were out of work who were crossing picket lines to earn some money, were being accosted by the people who just weeks earlier were thanking them for shopping at that very store and telling them to have a nice day. This time around, with higher unemployment rates and company revenues down across the board, it could get even nastier and last even longer. The stores are offering compromises, but of course, the unions exclaim that none of the compromises are good enough for their members. The members have voted to strike and it seems like it is only a matter of time until they do.

I, too, once worked for one of these union shops and was a member of this very union. Granted, it was over two decades ago, and the most I could take working there was six months, but my very first job was working at the Lucky’s at Seacliff Village in Huntington Beach as a box boy, making minimum wage, working full-time at a part-time job without any benefits, bagging groceries, lifting boxes, sweeping and mopping floors and shoveling broken glass to empty the recycling machines. I had just turned 15 and needed money for a car, car insurance, not eating at home, taking girls out on dates, of course, and to put some money away to pay for college. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but when they hired me, they told me that I was going to need to join the union, but explained to me that this was a good thing. I didn’t think it was much of a good thing when my first paycheck of $137 was in my hand and $84 of it went to pay my initial union dues. I also had a number of friends who had similar experiences with this very same union and their first jobs.

With that initial chunk of my money in the hands of the union bosses and with two trips to Buena Park to vote in mandatory union votes under my belt, working a very laborious job at minimum wage with no benefits, within six months, I was ready to move on. I left that union job at Lucky’s and I never looked back. I took note when Lucky’s was bought by Albertson’s and I took note every time the grocery workers were rattling their swords at the evil bastards that employed them, but it really wasn’t until the last strike which lasted 141 days over 2003 & 2004 that I really paid close attention to what was going on. Really, that was the first strike that I had any personal involvement in, if you will. I wasn’t on the picket line, and in fact, at the time, was out on my own at an independent shop I partially owned, but I did come in contact with those picket lines and I did hear about some of the nasty stuff that was going on when people were crossing them. It is this legacy of intimidation and scare tactics laid on shoppers by the union and some of its members that I remember most about their last strike.

The six months I spent working at Lucky’s remains my one and only union job to date. So, in 2003 when the last strike began, other than having to see my grandfather who paid into a union most of his adult life have to fight that very same union for his pension money because he wanted to keep working in retirement, and the basic working knowledge of unions that I learned from unionized teachers that weren’t really all that stellar, I still had a pretty clean slate when it came to unions. Over the coming 141 days, however, that would greatly change.

I moved to Aliso Viejo in 2002, and that is when I started shopping at Ralph's. When the strike began just over a year later, we started doing more of our shopping at Wal-Mart and starting buying what we could not get there at Stater Brothers. There were a couple of times early on in the strike that I crossed the picket line to shop at Ralph's to get something in particular that I wanted that they only had at Ralph’s, and one time, I even drove to Ralph’s without thinking and just said screw it and went inside because I didn’t want to drive somewhere else. I also had a friend who cleaned up, making a lot of money working long hours at a Ralph's during that strike who I went to see at the store a couple of times. I even considered earning a little extra money there myself, though I never went through with it. Admittedly, though, I still felt comfortable enough crossing the picket line in those early days of the strike. Some of the people on the lines glared at you a little bit, but others were very polite.

But, as the strike lingered on and people burned through their savings instead of working, coming to the realization that the strike was going to be a lot longer than they figured, those picket lines started to get a little bad. Then, once it was reported that a woman was actually accosted at the Ralph’s I shopped at as she was walking into the store with her children, I learned my lesson…Cross that picket line at your own physical risk. But, I guess that was the point they were trying to make, wasn’t it? That lesson was solidified by a conversation I overheard while I was in line at the bank when a member of the union was asking everyone in line what they thought of the strike and then verbally attacking anyone who did not support it. I tried to avoid him asking me, but he finally made his way to my spot in the line. Needless to say, he and I had a little verbal exchange at the bank that I will never forget. Someone at the union should have taught him a better way to earn support for his cause.

So, looking back, while that chunk of the very first paycheck I earned put a sour taste in my mouth for the modern union, I still was very much on the fence with unions up until things started to get a little nasty with that 2003-2004 strike. Needless to say, at the time I set out to learn more, to form a much better-informed opinion of unions, and in the past 7 years, I have concluded that while the initial intention of the union was good, and that the early unions brought us into reasonable working hours and reasonable working conditions, and took children off of assembly lines and got them into schools, I struggle to see how at the end of the day today, they are actually doing near the good that they used to. Couple that with all the classic union corruption, strong-arming and mob ties from the 60’s and 70’s that supposedly are 100% gone now, and you do not have a very rosy picture of the modern union at all. In fact, when you look at the plight of non-union workers in America today, many of them are much better off than their union counterparts, even though their union counterparts have a union looking out for their best interest. Look at the unionized auto workers in America, for example, and how their union benefited most of them out of a job. By the way, I did my own personal reflecting and found myself wondering how in the hell was it that I was in a union, paying union dues, yet was making minimum wage and getting no benefits? You’ll excuse me if I don’t look back fondly at all the union was doing for me at the time.

And now, as we stare down another grocery workers strike, I can’t help but have a bitter taste in my mouth from the last one. This time around, the complaint is that workers are going to have to start paying more of their healthcare costs. Oh, you mean like everyone else in America? I had to do that for a year at my current job when the economy started to turn and I didn’t take to the streets, accosting customers as they entered the building. In fact, I paid it without question, put my head down, got to work, and with the help of everyone at the company working hard together through the economic crisis, a year later, the company turned around and starting paying 100% my health insurance premium again because it was doing so well. We supported the company and came out the other side better for it instead of attacking the company, blaming it for things that were outside of its control.

I got a job at the grocery store and I didn’t really like it, so I went out and got another job, then another job, then another job, and moved on with my life. I didn’t stay at a job I didn’t like then blame the store owner because I stayed there. By the way, grocery workers in the very worst increase percentage are being asked to pay $92 per month for family insurance; $36 per month for themselves. I had to pay $33.11 a month and I work longer hours and I am salary so I don’t get overtime or holiday pay. To top it off, I negotiate all of my benefits and perks one on one directly with the company myself because I’m not part of a union.

Everyone out there is having to make concessions, and everyone out there is having to work a little longer and a little harder. Why should that not be the case for EVERYONE? What did that last strike accomplish? To tell you the truth, I don’t even remember, but I do know that it did one thing. It completely and totally swayed my opinion in one direction when it came to unions. I am not saying that these grocery store workers don’t work hard and that they don’t deserve the same American dream that the rest of us do, I am just saying that when it comes to supporting their strike and supporting them and the place they work once they are ready to go back to work again, it is a real struggle for me.

Why is it such a struggle? Let’s just say that I think that striking workers should be out taking some business and economic classes because obviously, they do not have a basic working knowledge of how today’s businesses work, even though they work for a business and pay union dues to another business. Striking workers need to better understand where their employer, the people crossing picket lines, and yes, even their union, all stand. I’m not saying that to be mean. I am saying that they need to become better informed on how businesses work and understand that their union is a profitable business and they are a customer that is forced to shop there, even when there are better deals in the marketplace.

Again, let’s look at what happened last time. We stopped shopping at the Ralph’s where the mother walking into the store with her children was accosted. We started shopping at the next furthest Ralph’s from home, but all the stuff we were buying at Wal-Mart and other stores during the strike, we never went back to buying again at any Ralph’s, and this has actually saved us quite a bit of money. We spend far less at Ralph’s today than we did before the last strike, quite frankly, because we were forced by union members to go out and find alternatives during the last strike, and find alternatives, we did. So, when Ralph’s doesn’t have money to pay for all of these workers’ health insurance 7 years later, how do these workers not see that the effects they created with their last strike play a large part in the financial condition of their employer today? How can they not see that this looming strike over somewhere between $36 and $93 per month is going to have any even more adverse effect on their employer this time around? All of the evidence points to the fact that shoppers in Southern California did not simply go right back to their same buying habits post-strike back in 2004, but in fact, are buying less and less at the union shops because the bad taste the last strike left in their mouth.

During the strike, we discovered Henry’s and it’s higher-quality and less-expensive produce. That taught us that we needed to do more than just shop at Ralph’s…we needed to shop around. The grocery workers’ strike and the insight it gave us last time around led us to finding Henry's, and in turn, over the years, Fresh N' Easy and Growers Direct. We have now found everything we bought at Ralph's before the last strike at other stores, and at a cheaper price. I guess I should thank the union in a way, because without the last strike, we would have just continued paying more for less quality at Ralph’s. And one last point before I wrap up…While we were buying less, we were still going to Ralph’s about once a week, but since March when the union first started sabre rattling, we are going to Ralph’s much less in preparation for not going there at all. In fact, I think I may have made my last regularly-scheduled shopping trip to Ralph’s at this point.

So, in conclusion, this time I will not be crossing the picket line – not one single time. This will not be in support of the strike, but will be because the last strike opened my eyes to the options I had at local non-union shops. This time around, I no longer need to cross the picket line. This time, I won’t simply cut back on what we buy at Ralph’s, we’ll simply just stop going there from here on out. No strike in 2004? I’d still be shopping at Ralph’s. No strike in 2011? I’d still be shopping at Ralph’s. Now? I’m done shopping at Ralph’s. Regardless of how this strike turns out, if enough people reach the same conclusion that I did, union members, how do you think that is going to affect the store’s ability to pay for your health insurance?

From The Internet...

2011-08-15T05:30:00.000-07:00

I quote Herman Cain (who right now, has my vote!) when he said, "America needs to learn how to take a joke" as I offer this one that made its way to my inbox:

"For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Not fair to make judgment of this until you see what the Fire Chief says !!!!

In South Los Angeles , a 4-plex was destroyed by a fire.

A Mexican family of six, all welfare recipients and gang members lived on the first floor...they died.

An Islamic group of seven welfare cheats, all illegally in the country from Kenya , lived on the second floor, and they, too, all perished in the fire.

6 LA Hispanic Gang Bangers & ex-cons lived on the 3rd floor and they, too, died.

A lone, white couple lived on the top floor. The couple survived the fire.

Jesse Jackson, John Burris and Al Sharpton were furious. They flew into LA and met with the fire chief. On camera, they loudly demanded to know why the Blacks, Black Muslims and Hispanics all died in the fire and why only the white couple lived?

The fire chief said, "They were at work." "

Where Have I Been? Neudesic Launches New Web Site, That's Where!

2011-08-10T14:50:00.000-07:00

You may have noticed that my last blog post was over a month ago...Way back on July 5th, 2011, to be precise. Let me sum up the reason why you have not heard from me for so long in a single press release headline: Neudesic Launches New Website Built on SharePoint 2010 Platform

Over the past month, we have dotted every i and crossed every t. We have read and reread the content and visited open task lists daily. Finally, after the culmination of the efforts of Neudeic's .com Redesign Team, the new Neudesic.com is live.

According to our press release, which has been picked up by a number of national and local news sources, the "[n]ew site features [a] modern look and feel and integrates with Microsoft Dynamics CRM."

The site is built on the strength and stability of SharePoint 2010 integrated into Microsoft Dynamics CRM and showcases the power of Microsoft's latest software. This exciting new site further establishes Neudesic's reputation as the trusted provider of innovative technology solutions based on Microsoft's robust and versatile technology stack.

From initial design to final rollout, Neudesic specialists completed the site using the same project management methodology they employ when delivering successful solutions to the company's clients. Experts in User Experience, SharePoint, Dynamics CRM and Engagement Management joined forces with teams from Marketing and Human Resources to bring management's vision for the new site into focus. "By choosing SharePoint 2010 as our Internet platform, we were able to quickly integrate with our CRM and HR systems," said Simeon Cathey, Neudesic General Manager, SharePoint Practice. "Now our sales force can easily capture new leads, and managing job listings and resume submissions is a breeze for HR."

"We are extremely pleased with the results delivered by our dedicated team," said Anthony Ferry, VP of Sales and Marketing.

Neudesic recently completed a number of other public facing websites using SharePoint 2010 and FAST Search. The company will showcase these and other websites, as well as solutions based on the SharePoint platform, in Booth 509 at Microsoft SharePoint Conference 2011, October 3 – 6 in Anaheim, Calif.

Coinciding with our new site launch, Neudesic is also holding a contest to encourage visitors to spend time looking through the site's content. Visit Neudesic.com and click on the Neudesic Launch Contest link for more information on how to enter.

To Blog Or Not To Blog?...That Is The Social Media Question...

2011-07-05T05:30:00.000-07:00

On May 15, 2011, this missive celebrated its 10-year anniversary. Think about that for a second. A decade. Pre-9/11, back when I was in my 20's, back when I was leaving the TV manufacturing business to get into marketing, back when my wife and I were about to celebrate 3 whole years together, back when my brother was still in high school, oh, and back when I was still living at home with my parents - no mortgage, no association, no city, no utilities - whatever did I do with my money back then?

So much has changed since the day I decided that the company I had just co-founded needed a newsletter, which over time would morph from a PDF attachment to an HTML email, then finally to this blog. It had been called the WS Financial Business Update, WS Financial Update, Quietly Working Update, The Patriotism Page, and finally, just The Update.

But here I sit today, looking back over the past three weeks and I am seeing something intersting. My last actual blog post was 16 days go, yet in that time I have shared 15 articles and posts with you all on social media.

Now, we all know that a lot of folks are saying that social media is the wave of the future, but to a number of us, especially those who work in technology, social media has already been around for quite some time. So naturally, you can see, as I reflect on the past decade of The Update and all of its forms, how I might contemplate its future as a blog vs. quick and easy links and posts on my social media pages.

There are defintely advantages to the blog. Try to find something you posted on Facebook two years ago. Try to easily search or sort your Twitter posts, especially the ones you forgot to hash-tag. Quickly and easily find what you posted on your birthday, or on Fourth of July five, six, seven years ago. The historian and archivist in me shudders at the volume of data that is being lost to the world with these quick and easy post and forget social media updates.

Yet, it takes me a lot longer to write the blog posts than it does to simply shell out links to the articles that I have read, though it might take you as the reader longer to read the long articles and shorter to read the short articles. We all know that the linked articles are going to have a lot less rhetoric and ramblin' (unless they're Fox News articles) than crazy ol' man Savastano's posts, but at the same time, just a link with even a quick few words from the poster still do not do that person's own opinions justice. And, from what I have heard, my rhetoric and ramblin' tend to make some of you laugh, tend to ruffle some of your feathers, but either way, spark much more of a conversation than a simple link to someone else's article ever does.

Needless to say, a definite decision on blog vs. social media is not going to happen today. It's Sunday as I write this, and our daily agenda has afforded me the time to write and prepare a post for the next business day, which obviously, the past three weekends did not allowed me to do. So, I guess for now, I'll continue to use social media to point you to the blog and I'll write blog articles when I have the time and simply shell out links when I don't. I guess I'll have to keep an eye out for further signs that it is time to hang up the blog, but for now, it's just not time yet.

Some Email & Social Media Numbers...

2011-06-17T05:30:00.000-07:00

According to Fast Company Magazine:

25 years ago, you had to write code to add someone to an email list. Then, Eric Thomas invented ListServ. Now, 30 million emails are sent every single day using ListServ.

In 1989, there wre 1.8 million email addresses. By 2010, there were 3 billion.

From 2009 to 2010, email use by Seniors was up 28%, but down a sharp 59% for Teens.

The average business person sends 33 emails per day.

In 1985, 90% of email was business related. Today, business email only makes up 8%.

89% of all email sent to day is spam.

In 2004, AOL had 23 million subscribers and Facebook, just 1 million,. By 2010, AOL was down to just 4 million and Facebook was uo to 600 million.

In 2010, there were 107 trillion emails sent, 170 billion pieces of actual snail mail sent, 36 million photos shared on Facebook, and 25 billion tweets.

Dismantling A Nuclear Power Plant

2011-06-15T05:30:00.000-07:00

As you read this, what was once the world's largest nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois (just outside of Chicago), is being dismantled. The plant, which was opened in 1973 by Exelon Corp., was moth-balled in 1998 when it became unprofitable, and has been sitting, collecting dust (and making more radioactive dust) for the past 12 years. Exelon was paying about $10 million a year just to maintain the plant, but did not wanted to handle demolition itself.

Now, in a first-of-its-kind deal, Excelon has transferred custody of the plant to a private dismantling company. It actually took an act of the federal government to make this happen. A demoltion company called EnergySolutions stands to get nearly $1 billion in business by taking on the project which is being funded by money Excelon set aside from utility fees for just this type of plant demoliton they knew would be needed one day.

EnergySolutions has developed a four-step plan to dismantle the Zion nuclear power plant that will most likely set the standard nationwide as America's earliest nuclear power plants start to age and must be dismantled.

First, the spent fuel rods that are housed at the plant are placed into steel canisters which are lowered into a concrete sleeve. This concrete sleeve can withstand temperatures close to 1500 degrees, tornado winds, and direct impacts of objects up to the size of a car, traveling 125 miles per hour. The sleeves, of which there will be 61 at Zion, each weighing 157 tons because of the thickness conrcete, are placed a three-foot thick slab of more concrete, the size of a football field. The sleeves are permanatly housed at the site of the nuclear plant. Vegitation growth will be encouraged to hide the concrete casks and slab. Armed guards will keep people away. The casks and armed guards will theoretically be in place as long as there is still civilization around to coordinate it all.

The next step is to dismantle the actual concrete containment domes that sat over the plant's reactors and the reactors themselves, down to the small components, until nothing is left. All of the dismantled material will then be transported to a radioactive disposal facility in Clive, Utah. Each reactor and dome will produce about 4 million cubic feet of material, roughly enough to fill 800 rail cars.

Once in Clive, Utah, the 4 million cubic feet of material will be pulverized into fist-sized chunks and buried in above ground graves which, like the sleeves and slabs back at the power plant, will be monitored and secured for as long as society exists.

While the materials are on their way to Utah, crews then begin dismantling all of the remaining structures - office buildings, etc. - and once all of that material is hauled away, crews will plant large expanses of grass, hopefully making it look like the nuclear plant was never there.

Debt Limit By Congressman John Campbell

2011-06-14T05:30:00.001-07:00

The following is from Congressman John Campbell on spending and the debit limit:

Last week, the House voted down a debt limit increase without any conditions by a vote of 97-318. Not a single Republican voted for it. Then, last Tuesday, the President invited the entire Republican caucus to the White House for a discussion on the debt limit. Frankly, all the President succeeded in doing was angering us. His arrogance, haughty nature and his unwillingness to say anything other than his campaign talking points left us all quite discouraged about any potential agreement. Still, the debt limit looms. Treasury Secretary Geithner says that we have already technically hit the ceiling, but that he is raising cash using "extraordinary measures" until August 2nd, at which he point he predicts we will be at the end of our financial rope and run out of cash. Conveniently, that day is just a couple of days before the House and the Senate are scheduled to go on summer recess. The potential to have to cancel that recess will focus negotiators in Washington.

So, what happens if we breeze past August 2nd without increasing the debt limit? Virtually every media outlet would have you believe that we will default on our debt. Even the business press, like the Wall Street Journal and CNBC, say that we will default without a debt limit increase. That means we would stiff bondholders, which would cause the bond market to run away from U.S. treasuries for a long time to come and would have a likely catastrophic effect on interest rates and the U.S. economy. Greece is experiencing this now as they dabble with defaulting on their debt.

But, it's not true. A failure to increase the debt limit will not trigger a default. Here's why:

• Reaching the debt limit means that the government is forbidden from borrowing an amount of money which would, in combination with all money already borrowed, exceed that limit. It does not mean that we stop paying interest or principal on the debt we already have. As proof of this, the Treasury Secretary says we have already reached the debt limit. But, there was an auction of Treasury bills this morning. How could we sell new bills when we have already reached the limit? Some older Treasury Bonds and short-term Treasury Bills are always coming due. And, we pay them off by selling new debt of the same amount. That's not exceeding the debt limit. That's keeping total debt at the limit. So, if $100 billion in debt matures, we pay it off with $100 billion in new debt and the total remains the same. As I said, we are doing this right now even though we are supposedly at the debt limit. We are not defaulting.

• The Treasury Secretary has well-established and enumerated powers to allocate payments of funds. The Secretary could in theory choose to default on the debt and prioritize other payments. But, this would be a hugely irresponsible move with negative long-term implications, which no sensible administration would do. Furthermore, such action might be challenged in court as the bondholders would claim their right to the "full faith and credit" of the United States and they could likely prevail.

• Once the debt limit is reached, the Treasury has a lot of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" measures it can take to find cash to fund the budgeted and appropriated costs of government for a while without additional borrowing. Whether those measures run out at, before, or after August 2nd, I do not have the information to know.

• But, if there is no debt limit increase, at some point that cash will run out. At that point, for the reasons enumerated above, we will not default. What we will have to do is only spend that which we have cash to fund. We are currently borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend. So, subject to the monthly fluctuations in actual revenue receipts, we would have to spend 40% less almost immediately. As attractive as that may sound, the effects would not be benign. We either stop paying for most of the government as we know it, potentially including the courts and the military, or we reduce Social Security and Medicare payments for all enrolled dramatically. That would be a substantial economic shock in itself. We would be truly in a "pay-as-you-go" mode, which the Democrats, at least in theory, love. The Treasury Secretary would have the power to decide what gets paid, what doesn't and when.

So, no default, but still a bad result. However, the reality is that we are headed towards a crisis right now if we don't get the deficit under control. We will have a worse collapse if we just increase the debt limit and continue deficit spending. This collapse will occur when the markets decide they won't loan us any more money because the U.S. becomes a bad credit risk and they are afraid we may not pay them back. In effect, we have 2 debt limits. One is the statutory limit on borrowing. The other is the maximum amount that the markets are willing to lend us. If we do not control the first limit, the second one will unquestionably cause a crisis soon. And, if that crisis comes, we will not be able to control its timing or its end.

I have become somewhat despondent lately at how little progress we are making in Washington on the deficit front. The 2011 spending reductions were miniscule. The responsible Medicare reforms put forth in the Paul Ryan budget are being demagogued heavily by Democrats who now believe they have found their 2012 campaign issue. Their "Mediscare" demagoguery is based on complete falsehoods. But, the point is that they are painting themselves into a corner where they cannot politically accept reforms that they have attacked so bitterly. Most Republicans won't reduce defense spending because it is defense, and most Democrats won't reduce any spending at all, including defense. So, the 2012 budget foresees a sizable increase in defense and homeland security spending. Because of this, the Ryan budget only reduces non-entitlement spending by $31 billion below actual spending for this year. Remember the deficit is $1.2 trillion. Democrats would like to raise taxes, an idea with which I obviously disagree. But, they only propose raising taxes on corporations and incomes over $250,000. Even if you do all the tax increases they are proposing, you don’t come close to balancing the budget. This is why Democrats in the House and Senate have thus far failed to even propose a budget for the last 2 years. The only budget they will vote for makes deficits worse instead of better. I had hope for the Senate "Gang of Six", but that broke up. The President is showing absolutely zero leadership as he seems to only be giving campaign speeches of late. We can improve revenue with job creation and growth (which I will write about in a future laptop), but there is no bipartisan agreement on that either. And, part of the current economic malaise is caused by the overhang of the federal debt.

Part of the problem is that both parties believe that if they wait until after the 2012 election, they may control the House, Senate and the White House, and then they can solve the problem on their terms. But, markets won't wait for our election. And, it is certainly possible that neither party controls all the levers of government after the election either and, by that point, we will be 2 years closer to collapse and have lost 2 years of potential mending.

Taking all this into account, we must use this controllable debt limit of our own making to get good enough reforms to curtail future federal spending so that we avoid the inevitable crash that will occur when we hit the market-imposed debt limit. And, if that means going over the brink, so be it. I'm not sure we have 18 months to wait past the next election, and I obviously don't have much confidence in an agreement under normal conditions before then. This would bring on a crisis, but we will control it and we can end it. Hopefully it will bring on a longer-term solution. Sir Winston Churchill famously remarked that, "Americans can be counted upon to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities." We need to do the right thing. Let's get there sooner rather than after it's too late.

U.S. Supreme Court Orders Taxifornia Taxpayers To Continue To Help Pay For College For Illegal Immigrants

2011-06-09T05:30:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the US Supreme Court, Taxifornia Supreme Court, Illegal Immigrant rights groups, Dream Act supporters, a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals, and the 3 to 4 million illegal immigrants living in Taxifornia are all in agreement that the Taxifornia taxpayer has a money tree in their backyard, should pay for anything and everything that society asks for, no matter how ridiculous, and that once again, the 41% of us who receive no government aid need to continue to foot the bill for the other 59% to continue to live a standard of life that frankly, they do not earn themselves like the rest of us.

According to the Boston Harold, “The U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday to uphold California’s policy of granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.”

This means that the Taxifornia taxpayer will need to foot the bill for a tuition discount for 41,000 students the rings up at annual costs of $23,000 at a UC school, $11,000 at a Cal State school, and $4,400 at community colleges. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the in-state tuition discount set up so that the children of people who had lived and worked in Taxifornia – paid Taxifornia income tax, and worse yet, federal income tax, could get a break when sending their kids to college? Why then, would that discount, at the taxpayer’s expense, be extended to the non-income-tax-paying non-citizen?

Not that I was ever in agreement with the taxpayer footing tuition bills (Yes, I’m one of those nut-jobs that believes you should pay for college yourself), but this really continues to be a step too far for a state government that spends way too much money and relies too heavily on the hard work of some people, while completely turning a blind eye to law-breaking and lack of hard work from others.
You want to go to college? You want to send your kids to college? Then start saving. Start putting money away. You and your parents shouldn’t get to not plan ahead, then on high school graduation day, stick your hand out and expect us to foot the bill.

So, if this wasn’t bad enough, the Boston Harold continues with their story: “Undocumented students and their advocates said they will use the court’s action to push for passage of the California Dream Act, state legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to receive campus-based aid and the state’s Cal Grants for their bills at UC, Cal State and community colleges. It could cost about $32.2 million annually, according to an analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The measure, proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, recently passed the state Assembly and is being considered in the state Senate. The Legislature approved a similar measure but former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it last year as he had with previous versions. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, ‘supports the principles of the Dream Act and would closely consider any legislation that reaches his desk,’ his spokesman Evan Westrup said Monday."

So, not only is Taxifornia asking the idiot taxpayer to help foot tuition bills for illegal immigrants, but it may soon be asking them to foot the bill for state-funded financial aid as well.

No accountability, no personal responsibility, and no respect for the law of the land for some, and accountability, personal responsibility, and a shitload of taxes for others. Freedom to do what you want, when you want, all with no consequences for some, and jail time if you don’t pay your taxes for others.

Read the entire Boston Herald article.

Yet Another Tax...The "Crash" Tax

2011-06-08T05:30:00.000-07:00

According to California AAA CEO Thomas McKernan, "more than 50 California cities have imposed a new fee for police, fire, and other emergency services that respond to traffic crashes." In some cities, the taxes are only imposed on those who are at fault, but in some cases, even drivers who were not at fault are forced to pay a crash tax, even though they were minding their own business being a model driver and in possession of state-mandated car insurance, paid up on their vehicle license fees.

Time and time again, this ridiculous state and these ridiculous local governments never cease to amaze me. We pay sales tax - we pay property tax - we pay business tax - we pay income tax - we pay gas tax - we pay car tax - we pay phone tax - Do I need to continue? So, now, greedy government officials are telling us that even with all of these taxes, there is no money to pay police, fire and paramedics to show up at the scene of a car accident?

To top it off, there are even more sinister forces at work with these crash taxes...the slimeballs at the collection agencies. That's right, I said slimeballs. While I have never been on the collectee end of the collection agency equation, I did at one time hire one to collect some money that was owed to me. What a mistake that was! They took my money, collected my money from my customer, then turned around and spent it without giving me a dime. Like I said, slimeballs.

So, where was I? Oh yeah, the slimeballs at the collection agencies. While local government officials might not be the dullest tools in the shed, they are not necessarily the masterminds of this tax. Collection agencies who are preying on cities strapped for cash are encouring city governments to pass these ridiculous taxes so that the collection of them can be turned over to...you guessed it...their collection agency...of course, with the agency getting a cut of the taxes they collect. A private company encouraging government to tax you, then getting to keep part of the money they collect for said government? That sure doesn't sound right, does it?

You will have to keep an eye out for a bill next time you are involved in a traffic accident here in the fine state of Taxifornia. With all of that being said, there may, however, be a slight glimmer of hope. Some of the folks that make up the Taxifornia State Taxislature are introducing a bill that would ban these crash taxes. Imagine that...the revenue-hungry Taxifornia State Taxislature even thinks these crash taxes are wrong! I guess we'll have to see what happens.

The "Instant Deal"

2011-06-07T05:30:00.000-07:00

Get ready for the "Instant Deal", the next evolution in the technology-driven marketing offer. As you may be aware, the "Daily Deal" is a daily offer from a web site that you visit at a certain time each day when a new daily deal is announced. The deal usually is a great item at a great price, but is offered in limited quantities, requiring an immediate purchase. With the growing popularity of location-aware mobile devices and services, marketers are using that technology to take the "Daily Deal" to the next step...the "Instant Deal." Brick and mortar businesses are going to use your location to send you time-sensitive deals. Say a restaurant is experiencing a lunch-time lull that is not their usual lunch-time rush. To get people in the doors, the restaurant will send out a special deal to mobile device users that are in the area, giving them some type of incentive. Retail stores are expected to also begin using this technology to make Instant Deals as well. If you have a location-aware mobile device and you're on email lists, get ready to get some Instant Deals from local merchants.

From Congressman John Campbell: Jobs And The Economy

2011-06-06T05:30:00.000-07:00

The following is from Congressman John Campbell:

"Things are not so good out there. The unemployment rate, already stubbornly high, climbed even higher in May. Economists are revising economic growth predictions downward. Housing prices continue to drop, thereby further reducing household wealth. Real returns on bank deposits and Treasury Bills are negative. The dollar is dropping. Gas prices are up, inflation is up. There are some bright spots, certainly, but the overall picture is that of stagnation. Unfortunately, none of this is a great surprise given what the government has been doing of late. We are printing money and artificially holding down interest rates to try and spur recovery. But, this is creating those negative real (after inflation) interest rates, which are distorting capital flows. Most of the country's tax policies expire in 18 months, so no one can do any long-term investment planning about taxes with any certainty. The government is retarding the development of almost all forms of economical energy (oil, gas, coal, nuclear), while subsidizing expensive wind and solar. We continue to run record deficits, which divert capital from other more productive uses and create the massive public debt overhang that retards growth. In almost every part of the executive branch, increased regulatory requirements and costs are driving foreign investment and jobs out of America. The causes for this exodus range from ObamaCare and the Dodd/Frank overregulation to the FDA, FCC, and just about every other agency with a federal acronym.

So, what should we do? First of all, there is no one "silver bullet". No one action will start the economy on a path to more robust growth and job creation. Instead, we need to do a lot of things. Things that will give everyone in and out of this country confidence as to our future path such that they build and create and hire again. If I were King of the Forest (not Queen, not Duke, not Earl - Wizard of Oz reference for those of you who don't know), here is what I would do right now:

1. Enact a spending reduction plan, which I think should be even more aggressive and work more quickly than the Paul Ryan Budget plan, that puts the country on a firm and credible path to a balanced budget in less than 10 years. This should be done with spending reductions, entitlement reform, and revenue growth through economic growth, not tax increases.

2. Create a new long-term tax plan that has no expiration date. This should include flatter, lower tax rates with fewer deductions, similar to the "Optional Simplified Tax" which Paul Ryan (R-WI), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and I have introduced for several congresses now. Also, eliminate the death tax and the tax on U.S. corporations that repatriate money earned overseas.

3. Go on a domestic energy development binge as a part of an energy policy plan to make us energy independent. Take advantage of the many untapped oil reserves we have all over this country and offshore. Do the same with natural gas and coal and nuclear, as well as some alternatives, and eliminate/streamline the regulatory requirements to make this happen. Doing so should lower energy prices immediately because markets are anticipatory. But, even if it didn't, we would create a huge number of high paying new jobs right now.

4. Create a U.S. manufacturing policy built on special depreciation rates and free trade agreements and relaxed labor regulations in order to encourage domestic manufacturing of complex devices. We are unlikely to manufacture many rubber toys in this country, but we can and should continue to make complicated things here and have the good paying jobs that come with them.

5. Repeal ObamaCare and major parts of Dodd/Frank, and ease regulatory burdens across the economy to remove impediments to entrepreneurship, new products, and new ideas.

6. Pass the Housing Finance Reform Bill that I am championing in order to give certainty to the future of 30-year home financing. The economy will never have robust growth without the housing market leading the way. My bill can jump-start that needed growth.

7. Pass a number of specific bills to remove impediments and uncertainties and create opportunities in many segments of the economy. This list includes things like reforming the FDA, rewriting the patent system, and increasing the number of H-1B visas, so that highly talented foreign individuals with advanced degrees from U.S. universities can stay and create new products and ideas here instead of doing it in some other country.

8. Put the nation on a path to universal, free internet wi-fi accessibility from coast to coast. The availability of free internet access will drive growth and jobs as the tech sector creates new products to utilize this capability. This is the technology equivalent of the interstate highway system. We can also create a new round of public infrastructure construction and rehabilitation by attracting private sector money through a new form of Infrastructure Master Limited Partnership.

OK, so that's a start. I could actually go on. There is no shortage of ideas. Just a shortage of leadership and agreement. Note that nothing I have presented will create any government jobs. We have too many of those. We need private sector job creation. And, that can only happen when the private sector can increase productivity and create new markets and new products and new industries. Right now, the government is very inward looking. Everything the government does is about the government and how to make itself bigger and more powerful and more controlling. This plan is the opposite. It is about getting the government out of the way in some cases, and having the government create an environment in which the private sector has new opportunities for growth in other cases."

It Should Never Be An Automatic Win...

2011-05-31T05:30:00.000-07:00

I recently received an email from Democratic presidential candidate Dee Neveu, in which she made a very valid point that I hope many democrats consider as our President starts putting less and less emphasis on being President and more and more emphasis on being a Presidential candidate:

"There are some of us Democrats out here who don't agree on everything within our
Party regarding some Policies, and we deserve to be heard too. Some Democrats believe that President Obama deserves an automatic 2nd term without being debated or challenged. I believe that every Candidate, and every Party needs to be debated and challenged, its part of our Democracy here in the USA, and if a current President is a Candidate, he/she too should be included in this thought, it should never be an 'automatic' win for a rehire. Besides, citizens get more of the truth, and can make a better selection on what they would want in policy, etc.. If the Democratic party won't allow a fair and challenged debate for President Obama, I believe he may not get that "automatic" second term that they seek to achieve, and if he does, the celebrating and partying will not be as it was when he won in 2008. President Obama won in 2008 because he was looked at as 'different' & 'change', but some don't feel that he has lived up to this image yet."

Facebook To Be #1 In Display Ad Revenue For 2011

2011-05-23T05:30:00.000-07:00

There is a shift in the online ad universe on the way. According to Website Magazine, analysts from eMarketer are forecasting that Facebook's display advertising revenues are going to see an 81% increase this year. This means that Facebook will be surpassing Yahoo in online ad revenue. Yahoo is still anticipating a 16.4% growth to $1.65 billion, but they are simply no match for Facebook's projected ad revenue of $2.19 billion, roughly 21.6% of all U.S. display ad dollars for 2011. To make matters worse for Yahoo, they are not even expected to land in the #2 spot after 2011 is on the books. They will be at #3, behind Google.

Texas Passes Forced Sonogram Law

2011-05-20T05:30:00.000-07:00

Texas (obviously, Republican) Governor Rick Perry signed a law yesterday that requires women seeking abortion in the state to get a sonogram. A woman seeking an abortion would be required to have a sonogram and wait 24 hours before the procedure. For women who live more than 100 miles away from their closet abortion clinic, the waiting period would be reduced by two hours so they didn’t have to travel back and forth or get a hotel room and spend the night while they waited. How considerate.

A woman seeking an abortion would also have some other options. Let me quote from the Huffington Post article I read: “Under the measure, women will be offered the option of hearing the heartbeat and seeing the sonogram image, which they may decline. But the woman's doctor must describe the image, explaining the size of the embryo or fetus and the presence of organs and limbs. In certain cases, including those involving rape and incest victims or serious fetal abnormalities, the woman could decline to hear the description of the sonogram.”

“Sturbanfuhrer, ist diese Frau weigerten sich, auf dem Sonogramm Monitor schauen!“ In case you don’t speak German, that’s the Texas State Government calling in its henchmen to force the patient to look at the sonogram monitor.

I am sorry, but I am appalled at the passing of this law. I know that abortion is a very touchy issue. I do hestitate quite often to bring it up. Admittedly, I sometimes question as a male if we should be allowed to have a position on the subject, or if the subject would be best decided by the gender it most affects. I must also admit that when it boils down the brass tacks, I empathize with us taking a choice away from someone, but at the same time, just adamantly feel that it is wrong. Not to re-hash the issue here, because that is not the point, but I am very well-considered on the subject – medical safety vs. moral issue, rushing into something vs. forcing someone to take a minute and pause, etc., etc., - and while I might ruffle some feathers when I say that I do not know if I am comfortable attaching the term “murder” to abortion, I at least consider it to be “killing.” I think to not at least admit an understanding that killing is involved in the abortion process is wrong. That being said, however, for me to say anything other than what I read this morning about the passage of this law is “fucking ridiculous” would not do justice to how I felt when I read it.

Conservatives call for less government and less government intrusion in our lives, especially when it comes to how we live and how we earn and spend our livelihoods, and I completely agree with that position. What I don’t agree with is conservatives then turning around and passing a law like this that clearly has no medical significance, truly steps into the realm of forcing someone to do something that they might not want to do, and leads me right into a completly justifiable Nazi reference because it allows for government intrusion when it benefits the conservative political agenda.

You won’t catch me quoting a lot of Democrats, but Texas State Rep Carol Alvarado said, "This is government intrusion atits best" as she made arguments against the legislation, holding up a trans-vaginal probe used for sonograms in early pregnancy. Nice theatrics, but still, a very good point. Now, if we could only get both Republicans and Democrats on the same page about government intrusion, we'd bet getting somewhere.

Housing Finance Reform by Congressman John Campbell

2011-05-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

I am sharing another of Congressman John Campbell's missives with you today. This one is on Housing Finance Reform. The congressman is introducing a bill that seeks to fix the problems with the current state of mortgage lending and the government's involvement in the process. I believe that most of this sounds like a good idea, though I question people's ability to come up a 20% down payment on a home in Southern California.

From Congressman John Campbell:

Housing is an enormous sector of our economy. We never go into recession without housing leading us in. And, we never come out without housing recovering. Arguably, part of the reason that our current economic recovery is so tepid is because the housing recovery is very weak. When you consider the construction of new houses, the sales of existing houses, the construction and remodel and renting of apartments, the home improvement industry and so forth, it represents a tremendous amount of employment, economic activity and is fundamental to a standard of living. And, none of it moves without adequate financing. Hardly anyone buys, builds or improves a house or apartment paying cash. Pretty much everyone needs to borrow some money.

The method under which most people borrowed that money during the last 70 years was through the assistance of the "government sponsored enterprises", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, it worked pretty well for most of those 70 years. But, as we all well know, both enterprises failed rather spectacularly in 2008 and were a major component of the economic crash that year. The reasons for this failure are beyond the scope of this missive, but suffice it to say that the model broke down, the housing market collapsed and the federal government had to rescue them to the tune of $138 billion to date. Taxpayers now own these entities.

Today, roughly 19 out of 20 home mortgages in the United States are made by and guaranteed by the U.S. government through Fannie, Freddie or FHA.

There is a general agreement in Washington that this cannot continue and that these entities must be liquidated. However, there is not agreement on what the proper system should be to replace them.

There are some Republicans who want to replace them with nothing and let the private market handle it. This will not work. The 30 year mortgage will disappear under this option, in part because the FDIC will not allow banks to make and hold such mortgages anymore because of some of the bank failures caused by the mismatch of long term loans against short-term bank deposits. Also, all markets are subject to cycles. If you want to buy a house or sell yours at a time in the cycle when banks decide they don't want to lend money, then you pretty much can't sell your house or buy one until the banks change their minds. This combination of factors will lead to a huge decline in home values, which (because of the enormous size and impact of the housing sector discussed above) will lead to a new and deep recession. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

There are some Democrats who believe that the government should be the only maker of home loans. Furthermore, they want to charge more to borrow money on more expensive homes and subsidize certain ethnic or income groups to obtain very cheap loans that really don't have to be paid back. This is the gateway to socialized housing (to go along with socialized medicine and everything else). Equally very bad idea.

Fortunately, those two extremes (no government involvement and complete government involvement) are beliefs held by a relatively small number of congressional members.

The correct solution, the one that will work, is in the middle. To this end, last week I introduced the Housing Finance Reform Act along with my Democratic cosponsor, Gary Peters of Michigan. This bill will liquidate the failed Fannie and Freddie and replace them with multiple (hopefully 10, 20 or more) privately held and funded "associations" to guarantee mortgages. These associations will act very much like the public utility that sells you electricity or natural gas. They will be highly regulated by a newly created regulator that will be very independent of political influence. They will not be allowed to be in any other business other than guaranteeing mortgages. They cannot be controlled by entities that originate the mortgages. They will be able to purchase a limited, but explicit federal guarantee of the mortgage security, not the association. That federal guarantee is what will allow 30 year fixed-rate mortgages to continue and what will create stability in the market so that mortgages are always available to credit-worthy borrowers. But, the guarantee will be very different than what Fannie and Freddie had. There will be a whole lot of private capital that will have to be lost before any taxpayer money is at risk. As a general rule, 20% down payments will be required. The associations will also hold a lot of capital, which must be lost first. And, the money they pay for the federal guarantee will work like FDIC insurance in that the payment creates a fund to cover losses should one of the associations fail. And, even then we can assess additional money from the associations to fill up the fund should it be depleted by a failure.

OK, this is really technical stuff. I am a geek. I actually wore a real pocket protector in high school so that my colored pencils, mini-slide rule and protractor did not stain my shirt. Anyway, if I haven't lost your attention yet, suffice it to say that this is a bipartisan effort to create a private capital structure with a very well protected and disbursed federal guarantee so that we can have a robust, but sensible housing finance market again to allow housing to recover and prosper over time. For those of you who can't get enough of this, we have provided links to the bill itself, a summary of the bill and The Wall Street Journal exclusive coverage of it from last week.

The Wall Street Journal: “Bill Proposes Mortgage Shake-Up”

Text of H.R. 1859, the Housing Finance Reform Act

Summary of H.R. 1859, the Housing Finance Reform Act

As my last missive indicated, we Republicans are at loggerheads with Democrats on the budget and spending and the debt and immigration and energy and a whole host of other issues. My philosophy of politics has long been that even if you and I disagree on 19 out of 20 issues, it means there is one place where we can work together.

This, I believe, is that place. It just happens that the right solution is at the arithmetic median of the political spectrum. It is needed because Fannie and Freddie cannot continue as they are for long. It is important because removing the uncertainty about the future of housing finance will trigger significant economic growth and job creation across the country. And, this bill has the opportunity to actually pass the House AND the Senate AND be signed by the president in order to become law and not just a talking point. I, and my cosponsor, serve on the committee of jurisdiction for this bill (Financial Services Committee), and so this will be a major focus for me in the coming months.

If you agree with what I am doing, I need your help. This stuff is complicated and it is a challenge to explain to my colleagues of either party. If you want to help educate those colleagues through calls and e-mails, contact my office to indicate your willingness.

I am an excited geek. It's not going to be easy, but I think we can do this. And, by doing it, we can improve the economy and preserve the American dream of owning a home of your own.

Medicare and Seniors and Such by Congressman John Campbell

2011-05-16T06:00:00.000-07:00

From Congressman John Campbell:

Remember back in the early 2000's when then-President George W. Bush proposed reforming Social Security with an option to set up "private accounts"? In spite of Republican control at the time of the White House, the House and the Senate, the proposal failed to garner the requisite 60 votes in the Senate and therefore did not become law. Democrats used this to some success in the next election by relentlessly pounding Republicans for trying to "end Social Security".

It is now 10 years later and no reforms of any significance of any of the entitlement programs have been enacted. Like 10 years ago, Republicans are proposing another reform. But, unlike 10 years ago, the country's financial situation is far more dire, with record deficits and record debt and all of the entitlement programs facing collapse. However, the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) political playbook remains unchanged. They are excoriating Republicans around the country for "voting to end Medicare" by supporting the Paul Ryan budget. Never mind that Medicare taxes currently only cover about half the cost of the program today. Never mind that 10,000 Americans now turn 65 (and become eligible for Medicare) every day, and not nearly that many people are entering the system at the other (paying) end. Never mind that the way to end Medicare is to do exactly what the Democrats propose to do, which is nothing. If we leave it alone, it will become so upside down in just a few short years that it will end.

Frankly, I think the Ryan plan is actually not aggressive enough. It "grandfathers" anyone 55 or older into the existing program. I happen to be 55 years old, so that is me. By grandfathering the likes of me, you ensure that we will not reduce costs in the program for at least 10 more years, and you are locking in some of those costs for the next 25 years (roughly my life expectancy). I don't think we have that much time before the system implodes. In Britain, they made changes which asked 65 year-olds to wait 2 more months before becoming eligible for their programs, and a 64 year old to wait 4 months and so on. This enabled them to save money right away without making things too tough on anyone and they are on track to balance their budget in about 4 years.

Those of you reading this who work for the DNC or the DCCC can now begin the chant of how much I clearly hate seniors, etc. etc.

What is not being talked about much is how the real damage to seniors' future is being done right now through the policies of those very people who are critical of any sensible plan to reform entitlements. The current policy of high-deficits and printing money and holding artificially low interest rates is actually eroding the living standards of seniors much more so than anything they can pretend that Medicare reform would do.

Let me explain. Seniors live on fixed incomes. That income is often derived from interest and dividends on investments from a lifetime of saving and retirement planning. Those investments are usually made in relatively low-risk instruments since seniors do not have the time to earn the money again should the investment go bad. One of those investments traditionally has been Treasury Bills. Today, a 5 year Treasury Bill yields under 2% annually. But real inflation (so-called headline inflation) is running around 5%. And, the easy-money strategy to monetize our debt is depreciating the value of the dollar, which is further reducing purchasing power. The bottom line is that a senior saving money on a 5 year Treasury Bill will likely lose 15-20% purchasing power from their money even after the interest is taken into account. In other words, today’s' policies are punishing savers.

Why don't we ever talk about that? The responsible individual (which is most people) who puts something away for his or her retirement is the one suffering the most from the current policies. Maybe the DNC doesn't care about these people?

We must reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and we must do so soon and aggressively. If we do not, these programs will collapse, our economy will be severely damaged and we will further discourage people from and punish them for saving and taking care of themselves. And, we will simultaneously reduce living standards for seniors and opportunities for younger people. If you don't like our proposals, then put forward your own. We cannot continue to endlessly give ourselves benefits without paying for them and not have a bad outcome.

I don't care about the DNC's political rhetoric. That's the simple truth.

Michael Moore To Join Keith Olbermann's Current TV Show

2011-05-12T06:03:00.000-07:00

Why just last night I found myself thinking, "I wonder what Michael Moore thinks of that." Well, America, if you are planning to watch Keith Olbermann's upcoming Current TV show, you will not have to wonder at all. Michael Moore will be joining to the show as a part-time contributor to provide you with his unique insight on a host of issues, America. Yea.

According to MSN, "Olbermann said the assemblage of commentators are 'among the top progressive and entertainment voices in the country today,' who will hopefully 'give viewers a sense of the strength and depth of the franchise we're assembling.'"

According to a press release from Current TV: "Current TV, the Emmy® and Peabody Award-winning TV and digital network, will premiere its much-anticipated week-nightly commentary show with Keith Olbermann, the acclaimed broadcaster, writer and commentator, on June 20, 2011 AT 8 p.m. ET. The show, to be called 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann,' marks the return to the airwaves for Olbermann, one of journalism’s most provocative and outspoken voices, on independently-owned Current, which was founded in 2005 by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt and is now distributed in more than 75 million households around the world.

You may recognize the name of the show because it is the same name as the show Olbermann had on MSNBC. It is also airing at the same time. According to some sources, Olbermann left MSNBC after the network criticized the journalist for making contributions to Democractic political campaigns, something that is viewed as bias by media critics.

Maybe It's Time To Start Learning Chinese

2011-04-25T06:00:00.000-07:00

Well, folks, that's it. According to the International Monetary Fund, the era of America will end in just five years when the economy of China becomes the most dominant player on the world stage. American politicians will tell us that we are still #1, economists will tell us where we went wrong, even though we already know what the problem is, and the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes won't care as long as they still get what society owes them.

We can already see cracks forming in the once respected U.S. dollar and U.S. treasuries markets, but when we slide to #2 behind China, the world economy and the world's international security system will have a very different landscape than what we all have known through our lifetimes.

According to the IMF, whoever wins the Presidential election in 2012 will be the last U.S. President to preside over the largest economy in the world. How are most Americans handling the news? The way that we always do. Instead of buckling down, making real changes, and addressing the problem, most of us will put our heads in the sand and tell ourselves that it won't make a difference in our lives, and the so-called experts are going to fuel that view by saying that the IMF figures are inaccurate and that we have at least a decade until this is going to happen.

According to a MarketWatch article, "Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and is rising."

While this is just a prediction, all signs point to the fact that the U.S. economy will no longer be #1 within our lifetime. America took over as top economic power in the world in the 1890's and unless you're pushing 120 years old right now, you have lived in time when our nation was the #1 power on the world stage. Imagine what the world will be like when this is not the case. While we may have our ills, we have led the world with the very best of intentions. Do you think that China will do the same?

也許是時候開始學中文

"Viva La Revolucion, Raul!"

2011-04-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

To quote Fidel Castro when he made an unofficial appearnace on The Simpsons, "It's full of what?"

Communists, Fidel. Cuba's government is filled with communists. And that is why the nation is failing. It is why the Soviet Union failed and why all the communist block countries failed. China? Without China's capitalism, it would be failing also. But maybe, just maybe, Cuba's government will not be filled with communists much longer.

We all know there was no way Fidel could have gone back on his word and dismantled the Cuba's communist regime himself, but now that 79-year-old little brother Raul is the "President", things may be looking up for Cuba.

In an unprecedented step towards joining the modern world, Raul proposed term limits for "the current president of the Council of State and his ministers". That would mean no more 52 year-long, family-based ruling, and according to Raul, would be replaced by no more than two consecutive 5-year terms in office for everyone, including himself.

Raul is also proposing, based on suggestions he has received from the Cuban people, the eventual elimination of rationing, the decentralization of the economy, and reliance upon supply and demand to set prices in some areas. The reforms stop short of people actually being able to own property, but this is a big step in the right direction.

Raul states that a lacking of Cuban young people intersted in politics and carrying on the regime is also a prime reason behind the proposed changes. Most of the original Cuban communist revolutionaries are already deceased and none of the oppressed following generations of Cubans are wanting to step in to replace them. Raul says he will fix this through reform and a "systematic rejuvenation" of the Cuban government.

These reforms still need to be made law by the government, but political experts believe Raul will move quickly to ensure his reforms are put in place. Let's hope so.

Of Shutdowns and Budgets By Congressman John Campbell

2011-04-12T06:00:00.000-07:00

The press coverage of the potential "shutdown" and of the deal that averted it has been immense. So, I don't think I need to bore you with any more information on what happened around here last week. But, I will give you my thoughts. I won't actually see the final "deal" bill until sometime Monday night. Then, we will have 3 days to review it before we vote on it. This was one of the legislative process reforms put in by the new Republican majority to avoid the sort of things that Pelosi and Reid did, like putting up a health care bill that no one had read or had time to read.

Subject to my final review of the bill, I intend to support it. Not because I think it reduces enough spending. It does not. But, because I think it was probably as good a deal as John Boehner could get, given that Barack Obama is president and Harry Reid is Senate majority leader. I opposed the original $61 billion in cuts because I thought we should have started higher. You cannot make your first offer also your last offer. Given that we started at $61 billion, $39 is probably as much as we could expect. And, the bigger battles over the 2012 budget and the debt limit are yet to come. We certainly showed that we are willing to go up to and over the brink, if necessary, to try and reduce spending to avoid a debt crisis. Also, because of this bill, we will borrow $80 billion less in the next 5 months than we would have had Democrats retained control of the House in the last election and had supported the President's spending request. That's a start.

As I write this (Sunday afternoon), one of the President's advisors has just announced that the President will give a major address this week, "…laying out an aggressive path for debt reduction." Uh-huh. He just spent the last 3 months fighting and opposing every single proposal to reduce spending or reform entitlements. Now, he suddenly has had an epiphany?

We shall see. I will listen to the speech. But, I have learned in the past 2 years that the President's words don't mean much. However, his actions do. He seems to like to say what is popular and then do something else. Whether it’s on spending or wars in Afghanistan and Libya or energy legislation, he will say one thing and then do nothing or something different. I will note what he says, but I will pay close attention to what he does. I truly hope he has changed. Our future as a nation depends upon fixing our biggest national threat, the looming debt debacle. Unfortunately, I see nothing in Obama's actions in the past that give me any real hope. I want to be wrong. I fear I am not.

We will also pass the Paul Ryan 2012 budget off the floor this week. I like it and already voted to support it in committee. I have told you before that Paul is amongst, if not the, brightest, most articulate and most courageous members of Congress. He has proposed the unthinkable - to reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security so that they do not collapse and take the country down with them. He is providing leadership, which the President has not. As good as all this is, I worry that the Ryan budget does not reform the entitlement programs quickly enough. He "grandfathers" everyone 55 and older (which by the way includes me) in the existing structure. By definition, that means we can't save any money in entitlements until people currently age 54 reach 65. That's 11 years. We don't have that long. I think we will have to move much more quickly than that.

I have more to tell you about how the debt is negatively affecting existing seniors much more than any Social Security or Medicare changes would. And, about the fight over defense spending within the Republican Party. And, about my home state of California's ever deepening fiscal woes.

But, these will wait for missives to come in the next few weeks.

Keep An Eye On Washington This Week...They're Talking About Your Money

2011-04-04T06:00:00.000-07:00

This week, House Republicans are planning to introduce $4 trillion in federal spending cuts that would go into effect over the next decade. How nice to see a proposal that entails 10 years worth of cuts instead of ten years worth of increased spending. Republicans are getting the message. Let's hope the Democrats are not too far behind.

I saw a clip last night of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in which he was blaming the craziness of Republican proposed spending cuts on the Tea Party. What Harry Reid and his fellow Spendo-crats are failing to realize is that this is not just the sentiment of the Tea Party, but is the sentiment of the American Taxpayer who thinks it is time for our government to start spending less.

Our sitting President officially launched is re-election campaign for 2012 today. What you won't see in any of his campaign ads is that his budget numbers are so inaccurate that the politically-independent Congressional Budget Office say the President's deficit projections are over $2 trillion lower than they should be when looking at the next decade. Clearly, Obama is going to hit the campaign trail painting a more rosy picture of our future than actually exists.

The Republican spending cut proposal also comes with strict spending caps in select areas. With the government looking to once again change the law to allow even more deficit spending by raising the legally-allowed debt ceiling to rise once again, it is time for the American taxpayer to take a stand. "We are going to put out a plan that gets our debt on a downward trajectory and gets us to a point of giving our next generation a debt-free nation," said Republican House Representative and Budget Committe Chairman from Wisconsin Paul Ryan.

With the current budget extension bill expiring this week, Republicans and Democrats need to come together quickly to prevent a government shutdown. There is going to be all sorts of wrangling back and forth on what should be cut and what should be left alone. Each side believes that certain spending should be immune from cuts and certain spending is ready for the chopping block. Finding a concensus on what will be cut and what will be protected will not be an easy process.

Be sure to keep an eye on Washington this week. They are going to spend quite a bit of time talking about your money, how they are going to spend it, and how much more debt they are looking to put on your shoulders.

There's Our Weakling-In-Chief. We Thought You'd Left Us...

2011-03-31T06:00:00.000-07:00

...and there it is! There is the weak on foreign policy, inexperienced, apologizing President that I have come to know in the past two years. The U.S. has officially handed over air operations of the action in Libya to NATO. This comes at the exact moment that the tide of the battle is beginning to turn against the rebels and Qaddafi's forces are gaining back some of the ground that they lost. So, at one of the most critical points of the battle, we, the largest, most well-equipped military force in the history of this planet, turn over command to NATO.

Am I the only one that is tired of the weakness that this country is displaying on the world stage? Where is the pride, dedication and duty that made this country what it once was - a beakon of hope - a shining city on a hill - the democracy that the rest of the world wanted to be?

We have become a nation of half-assery. We want Qaddafi out. We want to help the rebels overpower him and create a democracy. But, we're not willing to put in the work. We're not willing to make the sacrifice. We want to have our cake and we want to eat it, too. Anyone remember what we did to the Kurds after the first Gulf War? We asked for their help, they gave it, and they we hung them out to dry. Complete half-assery and it cost thousands of people their lives. The people of Libya asked for our help, we have kind of given them some help, but now, are we going to hang them out to dry just like we did with Kurds? We have taken the fate of the people of Libya out of the hands of the U.S. military and put it in the hands of NATO and the UN. Let's not mince words here. I'd be shitting my pants if that was who was in control of my fate. Funny, though, because that is somewhat how I feel when I remember my fate and the fate of our country is in the hands of the Fence-Sitter In Chief.

If you want to remove Gaddafi, then you should start by saying so, then going out and doing it. If our forces are involved in a military action, our military comanders should be commanding it. If you say that you feel we should arm the rebels, then you need to stop screwing around and go do it. Enough with this half-assed effort already! It is time to get in the damned game, Mr. President. Stop being such a freakin' whimp. Maybe we could convince you that the people of Libya need taxpayer-funded health care and that would get your ass up out of your seat and on a mission, no matter what the cost or consequences.

$4/gallon, $4.50/gallon, $5/gallon or More by Congressman John Campbell

2011-03-30T06:00:00.000-07:00

Once again, the Congressman does a great job of taking a look at the problems that we are facing and asks the administration and its cronies why they are all letting this happen...

$4/gallon, $4.50/gallon, $5/gallon or More: I was home in California last week and I paid $4.29 for premium fuel while I was there. And, as I write this, the price of oil is still rising. $4.50 or $5.00 per gallon of gas is certainly in sight and possible. And, remember that the price of oil is denominated in dollars, but it is a world market. So, when the value of the dollar drops, as it is doing now due to printing money and deficits and such, the price of oil in dollars will rise even if the world supply/demand equation remains stable. We have seen this movie before. I remember very clearly in August and September of 2008 that Republicans (including this Republican) took to the floor of the House during August recess to talk about the recent rise in gas prices and to send a "drill, baby, drill" message. I also well remember one day in September when I was scheduled to lead that floor effort, but the financial crisis was about to burst and overwhelm the issue of gas prices. I asked to see then minority leader Boehner and was able to convince him that we should not be talking about gas prices when a much bigger crisis was going to be upon us within days. He heeded this advice and we went out and held a short press conference in Statuary Hall where Mr. Boehner announced that we were suspending our energy discussion because there were other problems looming.

Today is almost the reverse of that day. The economic collapse in September of 2008 took gas prices and that entire issue down with it. We are now in the midst of a recovery of sorts and current gas prices threaten to derail that recovery. Now, I understand that the geopolitical forces driving the price of oil right now are largely out of the control of our nation's leaders. But, what drives me nuts is that in the last 3 years, we have not only done nothing to reduce our vulnerability to such forces, we have actually exacerbated them.

I understand that it is a world market for oil. But, we can give ourselves some more control over how it affects us by producing as much domestic oil as possible. I also understand that it takes years to develop oil fields in places like Alaska. But, that's a reason to start right away, not to wait. A couple weeks ago, President Obama said that his Administration is not stopping oil production. That statement is completely false. His Administration has completely halted oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. He has blocked development of the enormous field in ANWR in Alaska. Shell Oil announced a few weeks back that after obtaining 38 or 39 required permits to extract oil from an existing Alaskan field, they have found getting the last one from the Administration too difficult and too costly and abandoned the project. And, Obama's people continue to erect barriers to developing oil sands fields in the Great Plains.

But oil isn't the only story. We have a lot of natural gas in this country, but the Administration is blocking new development of this resource under the guise of environmentalism. We have more coal than any other country, but they continue to try to block its use. And, although the President says he is pro-nuclear, the actions of his Administration are exactly the opposite of his words, as they have been and are approving nothing in the way of nuclear power. I understand that nuclear energy has become a much more controversial topic in recent days given the crisis at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant in Japan, but it remains cheap, safe, very clean and extremely reliable.

So, what do they do? All they ever talk about are wind and solar, both of which can only ever be supplemental and which are very expensive and require huge government subsidies. The EPA also promotes and subsidizes a lot of ethanol, which can also only be supplemental and has a lot of subsidiary problems, including its affect on food prices. So, we subsidize inadequate, expensive power, and, at the same time, we are penalizing abundant, cheap power. And, because of the deficit, we are borrowing that subsidy money from places like China, which are developing and using all the resources that we are not.

Oh yeah, and now it is a federal crime to make, sell or use incandescent light bulbs. That's an energy policy? This Administration talks a lot about choice. But, somehow a choice that the law will not allow you to make is to use Thomas Edison's creation.

It all makes me so mad! As I said, I understand that we could not have stopped the disruption to the energy markets that is going on. But, we have intentionally left ourselves without preparation, alternatives or a plan. And, there are many, many options available to us. That is the real crime. Just remember when you can't fill your tank at a gas station in June because the $50 limit on your debit card only buys you 9.7 gallons, you can lay it all at the feet of the President and the eco-radicals he supports, who have become a significant threat to our freedom and prosperity.

Obama Deserves A Little Praise, But Let's Not Get Carried Away Here...

2011-03-29T06:00:00.000-07:00

I am honestly no less than what I would call astonished at how much in agreement I am with the President on the issue of Libya. That is not to say that I COMPLETELY AGREE with him on the issue, but again, I am still astonished at the level of agreement that I do have. I feel that he has acted more strongly and with more conviction on this issue than he has with any other foreign policy issue to date. I feel a large number of Americans would agree the administration has had a pretty weak foreign policy showing so far when it comes to strength and being a world leader, yet polls show 47% of Americans agree with the action in Libya.

There are some things, however, that I would like to have seen done differently. I would like to have seen the President and the world community act just a little sooner, though in the end, I do not think this is going to have made a significant difference, but a life saved by earlier action is just that. I also did not agree with the fact that we were not publicly calling for the ouster of Qaddafi from the start, but were simply saying that we were in the action to save civilian lives. This created some confusion and served to inspire Qaddafi and his loyalists early on in the engagement, most likely leading to additional fighting that may have been avoided.

This morning it is being reported that both the U.S. and U.K. have said officially that we are willing to accept the exile of Qaddafi from Libya without him standing trial for his terrorist activities and his brutual rule of the Libyan people over the past 40 years. I must admit that I find myself disappointed at this news. While ending the conflict earlier is a great thing, we also should be mindful of letting someone who has committed such atrocities simply retire and grow old somewhere; something his victims never got the chance to experience.

All of that being said, while I agree that it is truly nice to see the Fence-Sitter-In-Chief not simply sitting on the fence when it comes to a foreign policy issue, I am nowhere near ready to sweep the last two years under the rug over this one single act. Just because you get a "B" (or maybe even a "C") on one test, doesn't mean that is what you should get for the whole semester, or the entire first two years for that matter.

Oil prices are on the rise because of speculation in the market driven by Middle East "turmoil", the U.S. housing marketing is still in the shitter (sorry, there isn't a nicer way of putting it), and while we may be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel, the economy as a whole is still in really bad shape. The country is in debt way ABOVE our eyeballs and we are continuing to borrow more and more. The dollar gets weaker and weaker, buys us less and less and the cost of everything is going up. Don't get me wrong, good job on standing up for Libya and way to show some strength and some pride, and maybe even a slight belief that America should be leading the world towards democracy and freedom, but after two years in office, I still feel that we have seen some pretty lackluster results for the most part.

"You big muttonhead..."

2011-03-28T05:45:00.000-07:00

From Ruthenbeck v. First Criminal Judicial Dist. Court of Bergen County, New Jersey, 1929: "You big muttonhead, do you think you are czar around here?" was not disorderly conduct.

Prison Food

2011-03-25T05:45:00.000-07:00

From Doe v. Wisconsin, 2010:

While prisoners have a right to sufficient food to provide adequate nutrition, there is no requirement that the food be tasty or even appetizing.

Let's Hear From Newt On A Better Alternative To Obamacare

2011-03-24T06:00:00.001-07:00

Repeal Is Perfect Present For ObamaCare Birthday
By NEWT GINGRICH, JOHN GOODMAN AND JAMES C. CAPRETTA
Posted 03/22/2011 06:03 PM ET

Anniversaries are usually a time for celebration, but the one-year anniversary of ObamaCare is nothing to celebrate.

In the year that has passed since the law was forced through Congress, most Americans see even more clearly the dangerous flaws that demand its repeal, but also how it can be replaced with truly workable solutions.

ObamaCare did nothing to address the relentless march of ever-rising health care costs. Unless the courts decisively conclude that the individual mandate — and perhaps even the entire law — is unconstitutional, ObamaCare will force most Americans to purchase health insurance with premiums rising at twice the rate of growth of their incomes.

To make matters worse, the new law takes away many private-sector techniques for controlling costs, like flexible benefit design and cost sharing — and actually drives up costs through an array of new regulations and requirements. ObamaCare thus locks us into the unsustainable path we are already on.

Fortunately, there is a better way to expand coverage: (1) Offer a generous and flexible tax subsidy to people to obtain insurance, and (2) create a national market for health insurance by allowing cross-state purchasing.

Bizarre System Of Subsidies

ObamaCare offers radically different subsidies to people at the same income level, depending on where they obtain their health insurance.

If a worker with $30,000 in income gets qualified family coverage through his or her employer, worth an average $15,000, the only help from Uncle Sam will be the $2,300 tax break from untaxed health benefits. If this worker obtains the same insurance through the newly created health insurance exchange, the federal government will pay almost the entire premium and reimburse most of the out-of-pocket expenses. That's a total net subsidy worth more than $16,000.

This disparity will encourage employers to drop coverage. Low-wage workers will want to work for firms that don't offer health insurance to boost their wages.

Yes, the law penalizes businesses with more than 50 employees that do not offer qualified coverage — $2,000 per employee. But these businesses have been running the numbers and realize it would be more economical to pay the fine than to offer coverage. One major employer estimated it would save $4.1 billion a year by dropping coverage for its 283,000 employees.

A better solution is to give people the same tax relief for purchasing health insurance on the individual market as businesses are given for financing an employee plan.

A Quote On Money From Someone Who Once Had No Knowledge Of It

2011-03-23T06:00:00.000-07:00

One of my former colleagues at Neudesic, Gordon, posted this last week and I just had to share it with you:

Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can’t have criminals without a jail. We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves. If a man was so poor that he had no horse, tipi or blanket, someone gave him these things. We were too uncivilized to set much value on personal belongings. We wanted to have things only in order to give them away. We had no money, and therefore a man’s worth couldn’t be measured by it. We had no written law, no attorney or politicians, therefore we couldn’t cheat. We were in a really bad way before the white man came, and I don’t know how we managed to get along without the basic things which, we are told, are absolutely necessary to make a civilized society. - Lakota Sage Lame Deer (from John Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions)

.

A Letter About The Small Business Owner

2011-03-22T06:00:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter that I stumbled upon on a site that provides local news to people in the state of Michigan. The letter's author provides a personal view on the current fight between state governments and public sector employee unions that I wanted to share with you:

"Union members upset that they have been demonized in recent years have decided to turn around and demonize business owners instead.

Contrary to union rhetoric, reducing business taxes does not equal a giveaway to a corporation. In fact, under Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposal, most corporations in Michigan would pay roughly the same amount of business taxes, or possibly more.

It is small business owners who would see their tax burden reduced.

But unions have decried any reduction of business taxes as “a billion-dollar giveaway to the governor’s greedy buddies” and “just more money to line the pockets of CEOs.”

What about my dad, who works extremely hard, employs five people and pays an exorbitant amount in taxes?

What about the family-owned bakery or deli? What about the hardware store on the corner or the 10-person auto parts supplier on the outskirts of town?

Do you think that these business owners would not immediately hire more people and increase economic activity if their tax burden was lessened? Do union members seriously believe that all business owners are motivated by intense greed?

More than two-thirds of all new jobs are created by small businesses, and studies show that employees of small businesses are paid well and greatly value their jobs.

I wish I could say the same for union members, who have some of the best benefits in America, but complain endlessly and stage ridiculous protests to sensationalize issues, instead of just meeting with their elected representatives like everyone else.

Unfortunately, the other side of the issue will not be heard, because there are many people who are unable to drop everything and charter a bus to Lansing, as they are quietly working around the clock to keep businesses running and help stabilize the economy, for the good of all."

- Anna Heaton, Whitehall

Four Time Bombs That Will Blow Up Wall Street

2011-03-18T06:00:00.001-07:00

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Put Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein in jail for six months, and all this will stop, all over Wall Street and America, a former congressional aide tells Matt Taibbi in his latest Rolling Stone attack, “Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail? Financial crooks brought down the world’s economy — but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them.”
Taibbi’s right, everyone knows Wall Street’s run by a bunch of dictators who are doing more damage to democracy and capitalism than North Africa’s dictators. But jail the CEOs of Goldman, Citi, B. of A. or my old firm Morgan Stanley? Too late.

Only a revolution will stop Wall Street’s self-destructive capitalism. And watching the people revolt against dictators like Mubarak and Gadhafi reminds us of the spirit that sparked America’s revolution in 1776. But today we need a 1930s-style revolution.

During the S&L crisis two decades ago America had a backbone, indicted 3,800 executives and bankers. Today’s leaders have no backbone. Besides jail time won’t reform the darkness consuming Wall Street’s soul. We’re all asleep, in denial about the moral crisis facing America. Yes, we need a new revolution.

Jail time? We’ve heard that many times before. Journalists have been beating that dead horse for three years. Jailing CEOs made sense in early 2009. But our naïve president missed that opportunity, instead surrounded himself with Wall Street insiders as Bush did with Blankfein’s predecessor. Trojan Horses manipulating a Congress filled with clueless Dems mismanaging tired Keynesian theories.

Taibbi got it right: Washington’s error was in protecting Wall Street’s billion-dollar crooks when they should have been prosecuting CEOs for criminal behavior in getting us into the 2008 mess. So today, the political statute-of-limitations has run. Jail solution is wishful thinking, like praying to the tooth fairy for a miracle. Time for action. Time for a revolution on Wall Street.

Jail Wall Street? Old news. They got away with it. We chickened out

“Jail Bank CEOs” makes a great sound bite in the cable pundits’ echo chamber. Remember Taibbi’s earlier indictment of Goldman Sachs: the “world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

But so what? Just three years after Wall Street’s crooks “brought down the world’s economy” Goldman’s Blankfein and his buddies are paying record bonuses, and laughing at us.

Seriously, think about it folks: Since the 2008 meltdown magazines and newspapers have analyzed the 2008 crash to death. It really is old news, history. Journalists churned out book after book: “Greenspan’s Bubbles,” “House of Cards,” “Trillion Dollar Meltdown,” “13 Bankers,” “Dumb Money,” “Bailout Nation,” “All the Devils Are Here,” “The Big Short,” “Too Big to Fail,” “The Failure of Capitalism,” “This Time is Different,” “And Then the Roof Caved In,” on and on, ad nauseum. All talk, no action, and no effect.

Get it? With every book, every editorial, every expose the past three years, Wall Street bankers actually grew stronger, got richer, more arrogant, bolder on bonuses, impervious to attacks, even taunting us, like the dictators Mubarak, Ben Ali and Gadhafi, confident they could do no wrong, confident no one would rebel. Jail? Our moment to act is long past. We blinked.

Yes folks, Wall Street is the “Comeback Kid” story of the 21st century. Like a terrorist in a horror film, Wall Street thrives on threats. Three short years ago, Wall Street was virtually bankrupt, a ward of the state. We could have jailed “just one” of them back then, when they were down for the count. Instead, we bailed them out! Made them richer. Gave them $13.7 trillion, loans, credits, cash, asset buyouts. Gave them keys to the Treasury. They didn’t just recover, they “ran the tables,” to use a blackjack/pool metaphor. Now Wall Street dictators have absolute power, ruling Washington, America, you and me.

Yes, America’s bankrupt, but the rich just do not care

Admit it, we lost the opportunity. Jail a bank CEO and Wall Street will miraculously reform? You’re joking, right? Wall Street got away with a “legal” bank heist. Today the should-be/would-be inmates are running the prison.

Wall Street’s corrupt banks have lost their moral compass … their insatiable greed has become a deadly virus destroying its host nation … their campaign billions buy senate votes, stop regulators’ actions, manipulate presidential decisions. Wall Street money controls voters, runs America, both parties. Yes, Wall Street is bankrupting America.

Wake up America, listen:

•“Our country is bankrupt. It’s not bankrupt in 30 years or five years,” warns economist Larry Kotlikoff, “it’s bankrupt today.”

•Economist Peter Morici: “Capitalism is broken, America’s government is two bankrupt political parties bankrupting the country.”

•David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director: “If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians” the “tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.”

•BusinessWeek recently asked analyst Mary Meeker to run the numbers. How bad is it? America really is bankrupt, with a “net worth of a negative $44 trillion.” Bankrupt.

And it will get worse. Unfortunately, nothing can stop America’s self-destructive Wall Street bankers. They simply do not care that their “doomsday capitalism” is destroying themselves from within, and is bankrupting America too.

One mega-millionaire sent me an email after reading my Jan. 4 column, “America’s worst 10 years start now.”

“Paul, you may well be right about the coming decade, but the rich exist in a different world from the one you write about. They live privileged lives in gated communities. Meet for holidays at the world’s elite resorts. The richest just aren’t worried about today’s economy like your readers. Their issues revolve around who’s the best masseuse, best Pilates teacher, best concierge medical doctor, which private school to choose, what investments they are making at this time, etc. Folks at the top are not concerned with the underlying deterioration of America, except in the abstract, because they aren’t directly affected. That’s why no amount of information from you will ever change things. To them, it’s irrelevant. Best wishes, always enjoy your stuff.”

4 ticking time bombs that will ignite the Wall Street revolution

Yes, the rich live in a different world. And no, information won’t change them. But a revolution will. Revolutions build slowly over a long time. Then, suddenly, a critical mass, a flash point, something totally unexpected ignites the ticking bomb.

It happened recently in a remote Tunisian village. Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old college graduate, unable to pay bribes, set himself on fire to protest police confiscation of his unlicensed vegetable cart. That triggered a revolution. And his death rapidly led to the collapse of a 24-year dictatorship.

Today we have four hot time bombs, tick-ticking, soon to make history; any one can easily accelerate the revolution that’s already killing Wall Street from within.

1. Wealth gap: Super-Rich vs class wars, death of democracy

The gap: In one generation, America’s wealthiest 1% has exploded from 9% to 23% of America’s income, while middle-class income has stagnated. Even Buffett admits: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and winning.”

But my rich friend tells the real story, of their social disconnect. The rich just don’t care. They live in a different world, live by a self-centered code lacking a moral compass. The public welfare is honored only if supported by tax benefits.

The wealth gap is widening and soon something unpredictable will ignite a Wall Street revolution.

2. Wall Street’s doomsday capitalism vs rule by anarchy

A key Supreme Court decision accelerated and codified Wall Street’s ability to use billions stolen from taxpayers to lobby Washington and solidify its power, all for its own self-interest, through campaign payola, senators’ votes, presidential access, manipulation of regulators, grabbing tax benefits, etc. And it’s every man and woman for themselves.

Don’t believe it? Know this, democracy is dead and you’re in denial. Wall Street CEOs and Forbes 400 billionaires are either engaged in a secret conspiracy, or a classic anarchy picking apart America, oblivious of the fact they are setting up the next big revolution.

3. Pentagon’s perpetual war machine vs America’s budget time bomb

The mathematics of our $75 trillion Social Security and Medicare deficits often seem insurmountable, but can be recalibrated. However, the war-loving mindset of America’s neocons — fueled by China’s military actions, the insatiable expansion of our military spending and a Pentagon prediction that global population growth — is putting more and more pressure on the world’s scarce resources, and will, in turn, increase global wars and the demand for more war spending, increasing the risk of sudden revolutions everywhere.

4. Global population explosion vs resources, jobs, better lifestyles

As the world population explodes from 7 billion to 10 billion in the next generation, the demand for more jobs and the pressure on scarce resources will increase, while expectations will fall as the ratio of haves to have-nots increases, making the world all around Wall Street a burning powder keg setting up a revolution.

Bottom line: Forget jailing Wall Street’s dictators. It’s naïve and too late. We missed that opportunity. But a revolution will do the trick, give us a second chance to jail the crooks.

Until then, remember, these four factors are building to a head, merging into a critical mass that will accelerate into a revolution and destroy Wall Street from within: The widening wealth gap, capitalism’s new rule-by-anarchy, the high cost of feeding the Pentagon’s costly war machine, and the huge global population explosion.

The Most Dangerous Man In Washington

2011-03-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

Timothy Geithner is so in thrall to the banking industry that he could risk America's economic recovery.
By Simon Johnson

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has a deeply disturbing vision of the nature of world economic growth and the role of the U.S. financial sector. His view amounts to a huge, uninformed gamble with the future of the American economy—and suggests that Geithner is the senior public official worldwide most in thrall to the self-serving ideology of big banks.

Geithner recently told the New Republic that the world will experience a major "financial deepening," owing to growing demand in emerging markets for financial products and services. He is thinking, of course, of "middle-income" countries like India, China, and Brazil. He is right to emphasize that all have made terrific progress and now offer great opportunities for the rising middle class, which wants to accumulate savings, borrow more easily (for productive investment, home purchases, education, etc.), and, more generally, smooth out consumption.

But then Geithner takes a leap. He wants U.S. banks to take the lead in these countries' financial development. His words are worth quoting at length:

I don't have any enthusiasm for … trying to shrink the relative importance of the financial system in our economy as a test of reform, because we have to think about the fact that we operate in the broader world. … It's the same thing for Microsoft or anything else. We want U.S. firms to benefit from that. … Now, financial firms are different because of the risk, but you can contain that through regulation.

There are three serious problems with this. First, Geithner ignores everything that we know about the pattern of financial development around the world. It is very rare for financial systems to develop without major crises. In fact, experience in recent decades confirms what should have been obvious from previous centuries: As countries grow and accumulate savings, they become increasingly prone to financial collapse. Given Geithner's extensive international crisis-fighting experience at the Treasury Department, the International Monetary Fund, and the New York Federal Reserve, his naiveté on this point is simply stunning.

Second, Geithner assumes that risks at the largest U.S. firms can be contained through regulation, when all our knowledge points directly to the contrary. Even the strongest supporters of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation emphasize that it went only part of the way toward reducing the incentives for major financial institutions to take big risks. Looking at the combined effect of the new law, plus the weak additional capital requirements agreed under Basel III and the hands-off approach already signaled by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (which Geithner chairs), it is hard to believe that anything has really improved.

In fact, given that our largest banks are now undoubtedly too big to fail, they have even more incentive to increase their debt levels relative to their equity. Higher leverage increases their payoffs when times are good—as executives and traders are paid based on their "return on equity." And when times are bad, for example in a crisis episode, losses are transferred to creditors. If those creditor losses are large and spread so as to undermine the broader financial system, pressure for a government bailout will mount. Bankers get the upside, while taxpayers (as well as those who lose their jobs as credit is disrupted) get the downside.

The U.S. financial sector went mad for high-risk loans to emerging markets during the 1970s, arguing that this was the new frontier. This loan portfolio blew up in the debt crisis of 1982. A version of the same thoughtless cross-border lending is again underway, extolled by leading financial-sector executives (such as Jamie Dimon from JPMorgan Chase). They have apparently persuaded Geithner to tag along intellectually.

Third, Geithner completely overlooks what has brought significant parts of Europe to its economic knees. He should spend more time with the authorities in Iceland or Ireland or Switzerland, countries where "financial globalization" allowed banks to become big relative to the economy.

In Iceland, the three largest banks built global balance sheets that were between 11 and 13 times the size of the economy. And then they collapsed. In Ireland, the three largest banks went crazy for commercial real estate—financed by large-scale borrowing from other eurozone countries (including Germany). The politicians looked the other way (or were paid off, some claim) while these banks built balance sheets valued at two times Irish GDP. And then they collapsed, causing enormous damage to the government's own solvency. In Switzerland, the two largest banks (UBS and Credit Suisse) had a combined balance sheet in fall 2008 of around eight times Swiss GDP—mostly based on their global activities. Mortgage traders in London, not many of whom were Swiss, took on enormous risks that almost brought down UBS. The Swiss government could afford the bailout—barely. And now the Swiss National Bank is moving in the exact opposite direction to Geithner by pushing these big banks to become smaller and to finance more of their activities with equity rather than debt.

Geithner is a smart and experienced public servant. His views concerning the future of finance will help shape what happens. And that is why we are headed for trouble.

How'd Obamie Do Last Week? Zogby Says The Fence Sitter In Chief Gets A C+

2011-03-16T06:00:00.001-07:00

John Zogby is Chairman of the Board and Chief Insights Officer for IBOPE Zogby International, a non-partisan public opinion, research, and business solutions firm with experience working in more than 70 countries around the globe. IBOPE Zogby International specializes in telephone, Internet, and face-to-face survey research and analysis for corporate, political, nonprofit, and governmental clients. The firm is headquartered in Utica, N.Y.

Each week, John Zogby gives the Fence Sitter in Chief a letter grade. How'd he do last week? According to Zogby:

"Unemployment went down, but gas prices rose in the president's good news/bad news week. The United States added 192,000 jobs in February, three times more than in January. That may give President Obama a bit of leverage to claim that GOP budget cutting may also kill job growth. Oil prices put more pressure on the administration to help force Qadhafi out of Libya, but that alone may not drop prices at the pump. Obama may need to tap the oil reserve, and will hear 'drill baby, drill' again from people on the right. The surprise vote by the Wisconsin Republican Senate to strip state workers of collective bargaining rights could be a blow to Obama's union allies or a giant motivator for the Democratic base. On all these issues, it could be a problem that Obama looks to some more like a bystander than leader."

Your Public Sector Unions At Work By Andrew Klavan

2011-03-15T06:00:00.001-07:00

Take a minute to watch this video created by Andrew Klavan in which he explains his view on public sector unions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=su4PwZCWUdg

Why I'm Fighting In Wisconsin By Governor Scott Walker

2011-03-14T06:00:00.001-07:00

We can avoid mass teacher layoffs and reward our best performers. But we have to act now.

In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority.

Ms. Sampson got a layoff notice because the union leadership would not accept reasonable changes to their contract. Instead, they hid behind a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher, protects a 0% contribution for health-insurance premiums, and forces schools to hire and fire based on seniority and union rules.

My state's budget-repair bill, which passed the Assembly on Feb. 25 and awaits a vote in the Senate, reforms this union-controlled hiring and firing process by allowing school districts to assign staff based on merit and performance. That keeps great teachers like Ms. Sampson in the classroom.

Most states in the country are facing a major budget deficit. Many are cutting billions of dollars of aid to schools and local governments. These cuts lead to massive layoffs or increases in property taxes—or both.

In Wisconsin, we have a better approach to tackling our $3.6 billion deficit. We are reforming the way government works, as well as balancing our budget. Our reform plan gives state and local governments the tools to balance the budget through reasonable benefit contributions. In total, our budget-repair bill saves local governments almost $1.5 billion, outweighing the reductions in state aid in our budget.

While it might be a bold political move, the changes are modest. We ask government workers to make a 5.8% contribution to their pensions and a 12.6% contribution to their health-insurance premium, both of which are well below what other workers pay for benefits. Our plan calls for Wisconsin state workers to contribute half of what federal employees pay for their health-insurance premiums. (It's also worth noting that most federal workers don't have collective bargaining for wages and benefits.)

For example, my brother works as a banquet manager at a hotel and occasionally works as a bartender. My sister-in-law works at a department store. They have two beautiful kids. They are a typical middle-class Wisconsin family. At the start of this debate, David reminded me that he pays nearly $800 per month for his family's health-insurance premium and a modest 401(k) contribution. He said most workers in Wisconsin would love a deal like the one we are proposing.

The unions say they are ready to accept concessions, yet their actions speak louder than words. Over the past three weeks, local unions across the state have pursued contracts without new pension or health-insurance contributions. Their rhetoric does not match their record on this issue.

Local governments can't pass budgets on a hope and a prayer. Beyond balancing budgets, our reforms give schools—as well as state and local governments—the tools to reward productive workers and improve their operations. Most crucially, our reforms confront the barriers of collective bargaining that currently block innovation and reform.

When Gov. Mitch Daniels repealed collective bargaining in Indiana six years ago, it helped government become more efficient and responsive. The average pay for Indiana state employees has actually increased, and high-performing employees are rewarded with pay increases or bonuses when they do something exceptional.

Passing our budget-repair bill will help put similar reforms into place in Wisconsin. This will be good for the Badger State's hard-working taxpayers. It will also be good for state and local government employees who overwhelmingly want to do their jobs well.

In Wisconsin, we can avoid the massive teacher layoffs that schools are facing across America. Our budget-repair bill is a commitment to the future so our children won't face even more dire consequences than we face today, and teachers like Ms. Sampson are rewarded—not laid off.

Taking on the status quo is no easy task. Each day, there are protesters in and around our state Capitol. They have every right to be heard. But their voices cannot drown out the voices of the countless taxpayers who want us to balance our budgets and, more importantly, to make government work for each of them.

3-11-11

2011-03-11T00:19:00.000-08:00

11:24 PM (3/10/2011) - News footage coming from Japan is completely amazing. An airport terminal that looks like an island with the entire surrounding area underwater - Little compact cars floating like debris on a lake. Refineries and industrial plants engulfed in flames. Japan says 7.9, but we are saying 8.9. This one looks really bad.

12:19 AM - The footage of those initial surging waves overtaking the land is really hard to watch, but I don't think we have ever captured anything like that on video before. The Japanese government has issued a statement that they are mobilizing, but are basically asking people to do what they can until help arrives. Proof positive that no matter how advanced we are as a society, when disasters strike, you will be own your own for the first three days.

12:21 AM - Tsunami warning sirens are sounding in Hawaii. If there is a tsunami heading west, it is expected to hit there 3:00 AM Hawaii time.

12:33 AM - Tsunami watch for West Coast of United States issued. Landfall would be about 7:00 AM for us.

12:50 AM - They just issued an update to our watch - 7:20 AM Crescent City CA & 8:00 AM San Francisco. Japan is saying that at least one coastal town has been completely destroyed. Hawaii Tsunami warning was just updated to an evacuation order for low-lying coastal areas.

12:58 AM - Some news sources reporting SoCal in the clear, while some sources are saying it is too early to tell.

1:11 AM - New Watch Info Issued - Santa Monica 8:49 AM - La Jolla 9:00 AM - Some sources reporting California Watch upgraded to Warning. Reports that Orange County Sheriff will be closing beaches and not opening piers in the morning.

1:18 AM - Amazing to watch this unfold. Evacuation orders for Phillipines, Guam and Warning for everywhere along the west coast of US north of Point Concepcion.

2:15 AM - Going to get a few hours sleep - getting up at 5:00 AM when tsunami is expected to hit western-mos part of Hawaii

5:07 AM - Tsunami reaching Hawaii, but waves seem much smaller than expected.

6:18 AM - Looks like more realistic numbers are starting to come out of Japan. Apparently, they've evacuated the area around one of the nuclear plants. Rescuers are starting to find hundreds of bodies in the coastal areas. Looks like the early waves in Hawaii were not as high as expected, though some areas are still expected to be hit harder. Some reports are warning of significant damage being possible in Northern and Central California. We are just under an advisory down here for now.

7:14 AM - No serious damage in Hawaii, though there will be some large post-surge clean-up. Water is six inches to a foot deep along some coastal areas, blocks in from the beach. Some Hawaiian areas did have water come in 12 feet higher than normal and moved 100 feet inland. Officials in Hawaii warn that second and third waves may be higher. 2 to 3 foot swells possible on US West Coast. Warnings still in effect - even in Southern Pacific. West Coast coastal communities still under advisory.

8:35AM - Small tsunami waves have begun to hit the Oregon coast. They are much smaller than originally expected. Reports from Japan continue with more and more bad news and loss of life. A dam break in Fukushima has washed away homes and there is an entire train with an unknown number of people missing. A ship that had somewhere between 80 - 100 people is also missing. People in Japan are still being urged to stay away from the coast and evacuate coastal communities. All U.S. Navy personnel are accounted for. U.S. military is mobilizing to help. Seven U.S. ships are being re-routed to assist with rescue and humanitarian support.

10:05 AM - We are passed the initial warning and advisory times for landfall of the tsunami now and there really isn't much damage on the west coast of the U.S. to report, though a number of boats along the coast have broken free of moorings, some being pulled out to sea, some being bounced around harbors or dashed against break waters. Witnesses along the coast are saying that large areas of ocean floor are being exposed before the swells come in. Wave swells are expected to land through afternoon and evening.

12:25 PM - Reports about boats and boat docks all long the California coast being drug out to sea or scuttled after the water frust rushes out then rushes back in are pretty prevelant. There is one confirmed report of a person in California being swept out to sea. A number of nuclear power plants in Japan are being forced to shut down. Death tolls are still being listed in the hundreds, but some estimates of as many as 88,000 missing people are starting to circulate.

1:30 PM - Orange County Sheriff is beginning to re-open beaches and piers. Advisories remain in place.

2:34 PM - Reports coming out of Japan that radiation around the nuclear plant that had a coolant failure is 1,000 times higher then normal and evacuations are being expanded. Japan's early warning system supposedly did work and despite the loss of life may have ended up saving lives. Officials in Hawaii stand by their decision to evacuation, also claiming that the evacuation most likely saved lives as well. No damage reports from Southern Caifornia. Santa Cruz and Crescent City harbors suffered significant damage, though, and one 25 year-old photographer in Crescent City was killed when he was swept out to sea while taking pictures of surging waves by the mouth of the Klamath River. Four poeple in Oregon who were also taking pictures of waves had to be rescued. Officials across the Pacific continue to warn that more destructive waves could still follow.

3:00 PM - News coverage remains heavily focused on the tsunami, but some sources are starting to report other news as well. This has not been occurring for about the past 18 hours.

7:33 PM - Rescuers are starting to reach areas hit by tsunami in Northern Japan. States of emergency are in effects at the nuclear reactor in Fukushima, about 150 miles away from central Tokyo. Some people are choosing to leave Tokyo out of fear of nuclear fallout. The Japanese government is trying to ressure people that workers will be able to prevent meltdowns. Some rail services are being restored, but most airports are still closed. Japanese travelers are stranded abroad.

7:59 PM - Death toll has been set to about 1,000 now. People in submerged areas are awaiting rescue on rooftops. Hundreds are still missing. These numbers still seem so low compared to the footage that we have seen. People are still trapped in debris from the earthquake that occurred almot 24 hours ago. Large areas of Japan are still without electricity.

11:50 PM - Rescue efforts in Japan continue. Reports that as many as 9,500 people are missing from a single coastal town hit by the tsunami. Nuclear power plants in Fukushima sound like they are in real trouble. There is not enough power to cool the cores at two plants. Japanese officials seem to be trying to downplay the danger, but both plants are only about 150 miles from the center of Tokyo. Financial markets are expected to take heavy losses on Monday. Trading in Japan will resume on Monday. Japan is the second largest purchaser of U.S. debt. There is speculation if Japan will be able to continue to fund the U.S. in this manner. There is speculation that rebuilding might create growth, but that could be far into the future.

Domicile & Abandonment

2011-03-10T06:00:00.000-08:00

From Watkins v. Watkins, State of Kentucky, 1923:

"The husband possesses the prerogative to select the domicile in which he and his wife shall reside, and under proper and ordinary circumstances this right is practically arbitrary, but he must act in good faith and be sincere and fair in all transactions relating thereto, and if so the failure of the wife to accept the domicile provided may be interpreted as abandonment, but the abode chosen must be commensurate with their past method of living or made necessary by misfortune."

Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-Cells Coming To California

2011-03-09T06:00:00.000-08:00

A select group of Californians are participating in a special lease program through which they are among the first US drivers to hit the road in the Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-Cell, which is basically a little R-Class with F-Cell technology that gives off zero emissions. Participants will be helping Mercedes-Benz provide real-world hydrogen-driven automobile data to the U.S. Department of Energy, and were chosen due to their proximity to hydrogen fueling stations.

The B-Class F-Cell is powered by an electic motor with 134 horsepower and 215-lb-ft of torque. Mercedes-Benz says the car provides the same performance as a traditional vehicle, but uses about half the fuel.

Motorists Unfairly Targeted As Cash Cow For Government

2011-03-08T06:00:00.000-08:00

Readers of The Update know that I am a huge fan of traffic cops and traffic tickets and how, acting as the state's prostitutes, these officers work the streets, making money for "daddy". Turns out, even the CEO of the Automobile Club of Southern California agrees with me. While he doesn't use the same colorful terms that I tend to use, Thomas V. McKernan does agree that motorist are enduring treatment that is "inappropriate and unfair".

"Everyone agrees that state and local governments need sufficient resources to provide California's citizens with vital services, such as education, public libraries, law enforecment, and emergency services," McKernan writes, "but more often these days, state lawmakers and local officials turn to motorists to generate funds to plug bidget holes and underwrite spending on a variety of projects - which, frankly, is inappropriate and unfair."

McKernan goes on to state that while it is reasonably fair for drivers to pay taxes and fees that go to roads, the CHP, the DMV, and other driver-related services, it is not right that drivers are forced to pay for services unrelated to driving.

Cars are an easy thing to target as a quick way to generate some revenue here in Taxifornia because there are so many of them. A $5 increase in fees gets the greedy politicans $150 million.

"What's more," McKernan says, "state and loval governments have discovered less obvious ways to obtain money by raising fees. A good example is traffic tickets, which now consist not only of a simple fine but also of multiple added penalties that can quadruple a violation's cost." Your $100 car pool violation comes with NINE added fees and penalties that can bring its total cost to $440. Ironically, one of these fees is to help pay for the construction of courthouses, despite the fact that very few people actually go anywhere near a courthouse when they pay their traffic tickets.

You already pay taxes to pay for fire and police services, but some cities will also charge you a "crash" fee when you use those services at the time of an auto accident. The money from your "crash" fee usually goes into a general fund, not directly to police and fire budgets. Some cities, like Laguna Woods and their famous cameras at El Toro & Moulton & Leisure World Gate 12, fine you the same $430 for turning right without making a complete stop as they would if you just flat out blew through a red light. This generates large amounts of money for these cities.

In Taxifornia, we now pay 1.15% of the value of our car as a "vehicle license fee".

In summary, McKernan says, "Government must come up with real solutions to budget issues, fairly aloocate appropriate taxes and fees among the population, and not focus on a single group, such as motorists, which are perceived to be an easy target."

Frank Buckles, Last Surviving U.S. World War I Veteran Dies

2011-03-07T06:00:00.000-08:00

The following is from MSNBC. It is truly an amazing tale and life story:

Frank Buckles, the last surviving U.S. veteran of World War I, has died. He was 110.

Buckles, who also survived being a civilian POW in the Philippines in World War II, died peacefully of natural causes early Sunday at his home in Charles Town, biographer and family spokesman David DeJonge said in a statement. Buckles turned 110 on Feb. 1 and had been advocating for a national memorial honoring veterans of World War I in Washington, D.C.

Buckles lied about his age to join the army at age 16.The Missouri native was among nearly 5 million Americans who served in World War I in 1917 and 1918.

"I knew there'd be only one (survivor) someday. I didn't think it would be me," he was quoted as saying in recent years.

Buckles drove an ambulance during the war. The Washington Post said that with Buckles' death, only a 109-year-old Australian man and a 110-year-old British woman were believed to survive from the estimated 65 million people who served in the 1914-1918 war.

On Nov. 11, 2008, the 90th anniversary of the end of the war, Buckles attended a ceremony at the grave of World War I Gen. John Pershing in Arlington National Cemetery.

"I can see what they're honoring, the veterans of World War I," he told CNN.

He was back in Washington a year later to endorse a proposal to rededicate the existing World War I memorial on the National Mall as the official National World War I Memorial. He told a Senate panel it was "an excellent idea." The memorial was originally built to honor District of Columbia's war dead.

Born in Missouri in 1901 and raised in Oklahoma, Buckles visited a string of military recruiters after the United States entered the "war to end all wars" in April 1917. He was repeatedly rejected before convincing an Army captain he was 18. He was 16½.

"A boy of (that age), he's not afraid of anything. He wants to get in there," Buckles said.

More than 4.7 million people joined the U.S. military from 1917-18.

Buckles served in England and France, working mainly as a driver and a warehouse clerk. The fact he did not see combat didn't diminish his service, he said: "Didn't I make every effort?"

An eager student of culture and language, he used his off-duty hours to learn German, visit cathedrals, museums and tombs, and bicycle in the French countryside.

After Armistice Day, Buckles helped return prisoners of war to Germany. He returned to the United States in January 1920.

Buckles returned to Oklahoma for a while, then moved to Canada, where he worked a series of jobs before heading for New York City. There, he again took advantage of free museums, worked out at the YMCA, and landed jobs in banking and advertising.

But it was the shipping industry that suited him best, and he worked around the world for the White Star Line Steamship Co. and W.R. Grace & Co.

In spring 2007, Buckles told the AP of the trouble he went through to get into the military.

"I went to the state fair up in Wichita, Kansas, and while there, went to the recruiting station for the Marine Corps," he said. "The nice Marine sergeant said I was too young when I gave my age as 18, said I had to be 21."

Buckles returned a week later.

"I went back to the recruiting sergeant, and this time I was 21," he said with a grin. "I passed the inspection ... but he told me I just wasn't heavy enough."

Then he tried the Navy, whose recruiter told Buckles he was flat-footed.

Buckles wouldn't quit. In Oklahoma City, an Army captain demanded a birth certificate.

"I told him birth certificates were not made in Missouri when I was born, that the record was in a family Bible. I said, 'You don't want me to bring the family Bible down, do you?'" Buckles said with a laugh. "He said, 'OK, we'll take you.'"

Let's Hear From Taxachusetts Democratic Congressman Mike Capuano

2011-03-04T06:00:00.000-08:00

I often bring you the comments of my fiscally conservative, business-friendly congressman, but today I would like to bring you two comments made by Taxachusetts Democratic Congressman Mike Capuano when speaking to Wisconsin labor union symapthizers in Boston, and a little comment he made about the use of coffee cups about a month or so ago.

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Democrat U.S. Rep. Mike Capuano (MA) told a crowd of unionists in Boston rallying in support of their Wisconsin union brethren.

Last month the volatile Capuano said, “Politicians, I think are too bland today. I don’t know what they believe in. Nothing wrong with throwing a coffee cup at someone if you’re doing it for human rights.”

Of course, now that these statements are starting to make their way around the country, the Congressman is trying to downplay those statements.

Don't Forget That Michelle Obama Is Just A Regular Joe Like The Rest Of Us

2011-03-03T06:00:00.001-08:00

Today, I am giving you a link to a very long article, but one that is completely and totally worth the read because it gives you a really great view into the literal industry that surrounds the First Lady of the United States of America. Stylists and assistants that drive entire small businesses, all simply to make sure that one woman looks presentable at all times from state dinners to walking around the White House.

Take a read of all that goes on behind the scenes with our current First Lady's wardrobe, then tell me if you think these people are just like you and me...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/21/AR2011022104120.html

Canada Once Again Allows The Slaughter Of Baby Seals

2011-03-02T06:00:00.001-08:00

I hate to do this, but after seeing these images, I experienced a heart-felt need to share them with you. They are hard to see, but serve as a real reminder of some of the cruelty to animals that we still allow to happen in the "civilized" world. I would never assume to sit blameless for any of the world's ills, but you'd think at one point, we'd finally be able to stop killing baby seals for their fur.

The Humane Society of The United States is a sometimes controversial group, but they do have members that make the trek up to Canada each year to try to stop the seal hunt, and each year, the nation of Canada, and its Fur Institute allow the brutal and barbaric killing to proceed. There is just something about this that strikes me as so wrong.

If you have a minute, even though realistically, what can it possibly do, take a minute to tell the people at the Fur Institute of Canada what you think of the seal hunt.

See the HSUS images from Canada's Hay Island

Tell the Canadian Fur Institue what you think of the seal hunt

Here's a link to the Pacific Marine Mammal Center, a local group that does some really good work with seals and sea lions

John Campbell Discusses The Fence Sitter In Chief & His Financial "Policies"

2011-03-01T06:00:00.001-08:00

Last Friday, Congressman John Campbell put out another one of his newsletters. This time, he looks at the current actions, or inaction, of the Fence Sitter in Chief and relays some of the political stories he's heard from constituents lately:

"President Obama could be a constructive part of trying to solve America's debt problem. But, he has chosen not to participate. Here is my theory as to why: In his first 2 years, the President showed his true colors – enormous increases in spending and deficits and government intrusion through the stimulus plan; ObamaCare as a move towards socialized medicine; and national energy taxes in furtherance of a radical environmental agenda, to just name a few of his way left-of-center initiatives. And, although he won't admit it publicly, I believe that he understands that the "shellacking" (his word not mine) that his party took in last November's elections was the result of the public's disapproval of his policies and his agenda. This is, after all, a center-right country. So now, as his re-election bid approaches, he needs voters to forget what he really believes and what he really wants to do. Since he can't bring himself, as President Clinton did, to adopt a centrist or center-right agenda, he has chosen to simply do and propose nothing of substance. His State of the Union speech laid out nothing new or specific. On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he basically said that there are a number of options and we should pick one of them. Wow. That's leadership. And then, on budget and deficit reduction, he says we must reform entitlements, but makes no proposals whatsoever on how. He creates a deficit commission to give him bipartisan guidance and then does nothing with any of it, refusing to adopt any of the commission’s suggestions.

This President is moving to the center in rhetoric, but on policy matters he is going back to his old days as an Illinois State Senator when he often voted "present". If he is re-elected, he will return to the radical, unpopular and, in my opinion, destructive agenda in which he genuinely believes. Don't be fooled.

Anecdotal Evidence: I hear a lot of stories from constituents and others about what is going on in "the real world" (not Washington DC). Last week, there were 3 that really got my attention. These 3 are evidence of how government action still continues to impede job creation and economic growth. It is further evidence that, as Ronald Reagan said, "…government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." I submit for your edification:

1. The owner of a California-based business was in Texas at a national convention for his industry. The good news was that a number of companies in the industry were doing somewhat better and looking to hire. But, many of these businesses reported difficulty in finding people to hire because so many people wanted only to work part time and be paid under the table so they could still collect their unemployment. These people were not interested in working full time as long as they could get unemployment because the after-tax additional return was not worth working for and giving up free time. This example was pervasive amongst businesses at the conference.

2. A CEO of a Southern California-based medical device company explained to me that venture capital and private equity capital are not very interested in his industry any longer. "Why not?” I inquired. He responded that the FDA and other regulatory approvals were so long, ponderous and difficult, and knowing what you would be paid because of ObamaCare was so uncertain, that they have moved to other industries. Several sources have told me that the "hot" industry is "green energy”, like wind and solar. So, an industry with great fundamentals that makes products that are high-value and dramatically improve people's lives can't attract capital because of burdensome regulation. But, an industry with no fundamentals, which has no prospect of ever being substantial in the energy space and which has a higher cost than existing alternatives, is attracting capital because of government subsidy. This is not a recipe for economic growth.

3. A friend passed on an e-mail to me from someone they know with young kids in Madison, Wisconsin. The children, who attend public schools from which the teachers are striking, were told that they will get "extra credit" if they join the teachers in the protest. Now, I think that Governor Walker is right and the teacher's union is wrong. But, regardless of that, to use kids to advance your political agenda is reprehensible behavior.":

Buzz Is Hermain Cain Stands A Real Chance In 2012

2011-02-28T06:00:00.000-08:00

"There's nothing behind the voice or the message. The administration is in free fall. The country is in a state of anxiety and the administration doesn't have a handle on it all."

This is a recent quote from Herman Cain, a former chairman and deputy chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve and the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza.

When Herman Cain walks into a tea party event, he is greated with excitement, and you can even hear people say, "It's him, it's him." Cain has a radio show in Atlanta, does quite a bit of public speaking, is the author of "They Think You're Stupid" and is the first of many potential 2012 presidential candidates to form an official exploratory committee.

Cain has started his possible campaign by attending a number of small gatherings around the nation, last year speaking at 40 tea party rallies, and recently attended the Tea Party Summit in Phoenix.

Cain is looking to focus on national security, a fair tax, domestic energy, and repealing and replacing what he calls "health care deform".

When asked about being a long-shot candidate for 2012, Cain says, "Bill Clinton, another long-shot candidate. People would be nuts to think that a long-shot candidate didn't have a chance to win. He also points out that our current president was a long-shot candidate as well. "He was able to knock off the Clinton machine, that's what I call it, because people got excited about a fresh face and a fresh voice."

Cain's rise to political fame actually came in 1993, when during the Clinton health care reform push, he confronted the then-president at a town hall meeting in Kansas City. Cain tried to explain to President Clinton that his proposed mandate that all employers be forced to provide health insurance for all workers would actually cost some people their jobs. President Clinton tried to explain to Cain that government subsidies would help small businesses to meet the health care mandate and not have to lay workers off due to health care cost increases. Cain responded by saying, "Quite honestly, your calculation is in accurate. In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn't work that way."

Cain supports replacing our current federal income tax system with a federal sales tax. He also believes replacing federal income tax with federal sales tax will help stimulate the economy.

Cain credits Sarah Palin for the success of the Tea Party movement and its impact on the 2010 midterm elections, and says that he sees the influence of the Tea Party growing as we move into the 2012 elections.

Many sources agree that Hermain Cain is a candidate to learn more about today so you will know who people are talking about when it comes time to vote in November 2012.

When Did We Stop Laughing?

2011-02-25T06:39:00.000-08:00

We all deal with very serious issues day in and day out. If we can't take a step back and laugh every once in a while, then all we have is that seriousness, day in and day out. When did we reach a point in this country where we have to take everything so literally and stopped letting things be funny every now and then?

Private vs Public Unions / Private vs Public Sector Employees

2011-02-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

In the wake of what is going on in Wisconsin and starting to spill over into other states, Jefferey H. Anderson makes a truly great point in his article, "Why Public Unions are Fundamentally Different from Private Ones". In his article, Anderson points out that a private employee union bargains with its employer for a share of a profit, while a public employee union bargains against the taxpayer for a potentually boundless sum of money that is not limited by something as trivial and pesky as profit. A private union understands that there may not be profit in an economic downturn, but a public union does not concern itself with such triviality and wants its share regardless of if the government, funded by the taxpayer, is ending up in the black at the end of the fiscal year, or if the government is losing money hand over fist.

State governments are working on behalf of the taxpayers to try to reach some sort of compromise in regards to what the states have promised public union workers and what the states (we the taxpayers) can actually afford. As we have seen a number of times in this economic downturn, governments need to suspend certain programs and ways of doing business in order to deal with budget gaps and get us through this economic crisis. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together, and we are all going to have to make some concessions.

Workers in the private sector, for the most part, work longer hours at regular pay, contribute a much higher percentage of their own heatlhcare and benefit costs, and go without many of the guaranteed perks that unionized public sector workers do, including, most noteably, the fact that private sector employees usually earn pay increases and bonuses through performance reviews, while many public sector workers are guaranteed them in their union contracts, regardless of performance and skill level. Teacher tenure and the fact that a really bad teacher can keep their job regardless of performance is a prime example of this.

I disagree with this entirely and think it is time for a change in how governments deal with unions, time for a change in how public unions operate, and time for private sector workers and taxpayers to stop having to bear a bigger economic burden and career challenges than private sector workers whose pay comes from the taxpayer. While I would compromise at the two groups having to bear an equal burden, I would even go as far as to say that the worker whose pay comes from the taxpayer should bear an even bigger burden than the worker whose pay comes from the private sector when it comes to making concessions in an economic downturn, and when it comes to footing the bill for their own sector to operate.

What will eventually bring about the economic downfall of the this country will be the point at which all of the entitlement programs, all of the people who get something from the government, finally overwhelm the system by outweighing all of the people that are not taking anything from the government, the people that are paying into the system. The number of people reliant upon government for their very survivial is continuing to grow and our system cannot sustain this pattern indefinately. Either taxes will need to be increased, or we will continue to borrow until we reach a point at which as a nation, we can no longer pay our loans. All that the government, and through government, the taxpayer, is asking public union workers to do is to be aware of this fact, be aware of the economic situation, and make some of the very same concessions that private sector employees are having to make. Government is attempting to get us through these tough economic conditions and is looking to public union workers to be realistic and think beyond just themselves and the union, but for the current greater good of the citizenry. That seems like a reasonable request to me.

Taking The Day Off At The Taxpayer's Expense

2011-02-23T06:00:00.000-08:00

Just like a Reese's peanut butter cup, Wisconsin has recently seen the coming together of my two favorite things...protestors and teachers...

As Milwaukee Public School teachers left their classrooms to march in Madison Friday, they likely earned more than $3 million to not teach students in Wisconsin’s largest school district.

In Madison, the school district was closed for three days after hundreds of teachers engaged in a mass sick-out so they could attend protest rallies at the State Capitol. That could cost the district $2.7 million.

Late Sunday night Madison Metropolitan School District administration announced their schools would be shut down yet one more day, at a possible cost of more than $900,000.

Many of absent teachers converged on the Capitol to protest a bill which would alter their compensation packages and make changes in government employee unions’ ability to collectively bargain on issues other than wages.

While some have speculated that the absent teachers will see their pay docked, that may not be the case if they provide a doctor’s note. Due to collective bargaining rules currently in place, the absences could be considered excused and the teachers would be paid for their protesting.

That possibility took on added significance as the MacIver News Service broke the story Saturday that several doctors in lab coats were handing out medical excuse notes to passers by, without examining the ‘patients.’

…If all the teachers in Milwaukee and Madison are paid for the days missed, the protest related salaries for just the state’s two largest districts would exceed $6.6 million dollars.

Using a figure of $100,005 for average teacher compensation in MPS and an average yearly workload of 195 days, these teachers cost approximately $513 per day in salary and benefits to employ. Spread over 5,960.3 full-time licensed teachers in the district, this adds up to $3,057,634 in daily expenses.

The average teacher’s total compensation in Madison is $74,912, according to the Department of Public Instruction. Each day costs $384.16 per teacher. The district has 2,370 teachers.

These figures don’t include administrators and support staff, many of which got an unexpected paid days off thanks to the week’s protests .

Heading Off The Cliff By John Campbell

2011-02-22T06:00:00.000-08:00

Perhaps it is too often that I re-publish the musings of my Congressman, but too often his musings closely match my musings on government:

"I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had no where else to go" - President Abraham Lincoln

I'm exhausted. I wasn't good at pulling "all-nighters" when I was in college. Now, at age 55, my resilience from such things is even less. Congress had an all-nighter Friday night, after a "most of the nighter" on Thursday. Just before 5 AM Saturday morning, after being in session and voting for 20 straight hours, and after 90 hours of debate on over 600 amendments, the House passed a bill to fund the federal government from March 5th until September 30, 2011 spending about $62 billion less than last year. But, more important than my physical depletion is the profound melancholy I feel right now. Yes, a spending bill passed that actually reduces spending. Many of my colleagues who have been around much longer than I have remind me that it is a huge shift to talk about how much we are going to cut instead of how to slow the rate of increase. I get that. But, if you are in a car heading for a cliff, it is not enough to apply the brakes if that braking is insufficient to keep you from going over the cliff. You must brake hard. It looks like Wisconsin Governor Walker is doing that in Madison. But, we are not doing it in Washington. I think America is ready to do what is necessary to avoid national fiscal collapse and calamity. But, I'm not sure Congress is there yet.

The vote was 235-189. Every Democrat voted against it. That surprised and disappointed me. The cuts are not that deep and I would have thought that a few of the remaining "blue dogs" who often speak about fiscal sanity would have voted yes. I was one of 3 Republicans to vote no. We all voted no because it did not reduce spending enough. I thought there might have been a few more to join our little band of rebels.

The details of the debate and votes on the amendments shed some light on why I fear that, even after the 2010 elections, the enormous inertia of Congress to spend has not yet been overcome. The Republican Chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Hal Rogers, R-KY) opposed 17 of the first 18 amendments that reduced spending. All 17 he opposed lost. These included a 25% reduction in the cost of boards and commissions in the Department of Defense, a cost reduction suggested by the Secretary of Defense. But, no, we will make them spend the additional $18 million. The defeat of that amendment was, in my opinion, a seminal moment. In fact, only one spending reduction to the Defense Department’s budget passed all week. An amendment offered by Jim Jordan (R-OH) and cosponsored by yours truly would have reduced non-security spending to 2008 levels. It failed by a vote of 147-281, meaning that some 40% of Republicans in addition to all Democrats opposed it. This cost saving measure had nothing to do with security. It is not a big stretch to ask the government to spend at levels spent just 2 years ago when there has been little intervening inflation.

I could go on, but it will only depress me more to relive it all. Now, the bill goes to the Senate where it will only get worse. The road from here is uncertain and will be played out over the next few months as we encounter deadlines and debt limits and such.

Further, I understand that nothing we pass in the House will make it through the Senate and through this President. But, I wish we would show the other arms of government and the American people that at least the House is willing to lead us boldly away from the darkness. We need to get there soon.

Many of you thank me for writing these missives. I thank you for reading them. They are, frankly, therapeutic for me to write almost in the fashion of a diary. It is a long 6 hour flight home to California now. The flight is often lonely and the skies outside are usually dark. Some trips are longer, lonelier, and darker than others. This was never a job I sought. But, it is one in which I feel my role is an important one. I know God is there with me somewhere. It is His guidance and His strength that sustains me. But, it is nice to know that many of you are there with me too. I thank you for your faithful readership, your support, and your prayers.

John Campbell On The Future Of Egypt

2011-02-21T06:00:00.000-08:00

From Congressman John Campbell On The Future Of Egypt:

Blame it on, or credit, the internet and Facebook. Totalitarian or authoritarian regimes governing a populace with few rights and less prosperity are not new. In fact, most countries have been governed this way for centuries. But, first Tunisia, now Egypt, and maybe Jordan and Syria have experienced largely peaceful public uprisings. Why? There has never been freedom of the press in such countries. The press was always a subsidiary of the government. A former Bush administration official recently told me of a Russian relative whose father was imprisoned by Stalin and thought he was wonderful. "How could you like the ruler who imprisoned you?”, he was asked. He answered, "Because I knew from the papers that all other governments were much, much worse and that we were ruled benevolently". The internet has changed all that. A modern country cannot exist without computers, and with computers comes access to information outside of that country and the ability for opposition to form on a social network. Hence, people without prosperity are learning that there is a great deal of prosperity and freedom in other places. And, they want some. In addition to the aforementioned countries, some former soviet republics, as well as China, have similar risks.

I have always felt that the first objective of U.S. foreign policy is to protect the security and interests of the people of the United States. Only secondarily is it to spread Jeffersonian democracies around the world. Egypt will have elections. We want them to be off in the future some months or even farther away. In spite of recent comments by Obama's Director of National Intelligence, the Muslim Brotherhood is made up of Islamic extremists who will likely be very bad for stability and peace in the region and would probably sponsor terrorism against the U.S. But, there are no alternative secular parties out there now because Mubarek kept them from forming as alternatives to him. These will develop now, but they will take time. People much closer to this than me believe that the Egyptians will not elect the Muslim Brotherhood if they have other, strong options. We should facilitate the development of these other groups. This is very important. You all know that I do not think we should be in Afghanistan anymore in part because the country is not strategically important. Egypt is VERY strategically important. Remember that just having elections does not guarantee a result in the best interests of the U.S. or the world. There must be a free flow of information and a culture of democracy to make them work. Remember that Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany as a result of an election, and was appointed to that office because he was so popular with the people. He did not take power in some military coup. That did not turn out so good either for the Germans or the world. Egyptians and the rest of us should work towards a better result.

New Jersey Gets Away With It

2011-02-18T06:00:00.000-08:00

Next time the evil government conspirators use their cutting edge technology to put voices in your head, be sure that you file your law suit aganst them before the statue of limitations kicks...

From Searight v. State of New Jersey, 1976:
Suit filed against the State of New Jersey by individual who alleged that in October, 1962, while he was in custody, the State unlawfully injected him in the left eye with a radium electric beam and that, as a result, someone now talks to him on the inside of his brain was barred by the applicable New Jersey statute of limitations which allows two years after a cause of action accrues to file suit.

Name Calling In Court

2011-02-17T06:00:00.000-08:00

From Blouin v. Anton, 1981, in the great state of Vermont:

"Where vitriolic replies to remarks attributed to plaintiff were directed to plaintiff as potential political foe and not as an accountant, words 'horse's ass,' 'jerk,' 'idiot' and 'paranoid' used in such context were not libelous per se."

John Campbell Introducing Bills To Reduce Government Spending Even Further

2011-02-15T07:00:00.000-08:00

From Congressman John Campbell:

This week, the House will take up the bill (Continuing Resolution or CR) which funds the government for the balance of this fiscal year (until 9/30/2011). This has to be done because of the Democrat majority's failure to enact a budget or a single appropriations bill last year. Now, the argument is about how much spending to reduce.

Remember that I believe that our national debt is the greatest threat to the security, prosperity and hegemony of the United States without a close second. We have a record annual deficit this year of $1.5 TRILLION! We have to cut everything as much and as quickly as possible or we could lose it all. To give you an idea of how much is available to cut, the segment of federal spending that is subject to annual budgeting and appropriation (discretionary spending) has increased 38% since 2006. And, there has been very little inflation during those 4 years. Were government programs so woefully inadequate 4 years ago that it would be a tragedy to return to those spending levels?

The Pledge to America said that we would cut non-security spending to 2008 levels and would reduce spending by at least $100 billion. The bill put together by the House Appropriations Committee falls short of that goal. Instead of cutting from actual spending amounts, they are cutting from the President's request for increased spending. Well, cutting spending increases that do not yet exist and are only proposed is not cutting! Anyway, I believe that the bill is about $37 billion short of the amount of spending reductions that we should be making, and I am in the epicenter of an internal squabble amongst Republicans over this issue. I will offer 2 amendments to the bill this week which, if both are adopted, will satisfy both elements of the Pledge. Hence, they have been dubbed by talk show host and author Hugh Hewitt as the "pledge keeper amendments". Democrats, still in complete denial of the problem, are arguing against any cuts and instead still want to increase spending. Unbelievable. So, this is a battle amongst Republicans for how much to reduce spending by, with Democrats arguing against all of us.

The good news here is that, for the very first time in my memory, we are talking about how much actual spending we should cut, not how much we can reduce to slow or increase the growth of spending. This is very, very positive. But, the problem is so deep and the culture of spending and waste in DC so pervasive, that I will always push the envelope to do more.

I will let you know how it comes out.

Give 'em Hell, Mr. Wagner

2011-02-15T06:00:00.000-08:00

I recently received a newsletter update from State Assemblyman Donald Wagner. Mr. Wagner is taking over our fight to cut spending in Taxramento from Chuck DeVore, our three-term Assemblyman who was forced to leave his seat due to term limits. Mr. Wagner is promising to ensure that Taxifornia's new budget meets the demand of taxpayers like us:

No-Tax Budget
By Assemblyman Donald P. Wagner

Governor Jerry Brown recently released his budget proposal for the coming fiscal year. The proposal officially begins the difficult process of getting our state's finances on track.

I agree with the Governor that we must not delay reaching a budget solution to address a $25.4 billion deficit over the next 18 months.

But given California's high unemployment and high taxes, it makes no sense to raise taxes even further. The effective solutions to our budget problems are:

Real cuts to spending we cannot afford;
- Tax relief leaving more money in the hands of the people who earn it; and
- Relief from the crushing regulatory burdens Californians face.
- Facing a $25.4 billion shortfall, we must find real and lasting savings in fast growing government programs such as health and human services.

As the Legislature reviews Gov. Brown's budget proposal, my Republican colleagues and I will fight hard to:
- Go through state spending line-by-line to find real savings;
- Protect overtaxed Californians and job creators from painful tax increases; and
- Pass budget reforms that will encourage more private-sector job creation.

With 2.3 million people out of work, the state cannot afford to pass another budget filled with gimmicks and tax increases. As your representative, I will do everything I can to pass an honest budget that all Californians deserve in Sacramento.

When Police Officers Commit Brutality On Each Other

2011-02-04T06:00:00.000-08:00

The following is from the 1989 Washington D.C. case of Graham v. Davis:

Police officers who were found to have used excessive force against each other in altercation at scene of arrest, during which both were in plain clothes and neither knew other was police officer, were not precluded from recovering on their respective constitutional claims raised under § 1983.

Usuary Language

2011-02-03T06:00:00.000-08:00

Wilcox v. Moore, 93 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. 1958)

Purpose of the law of usury is to protect the necessitous borrower from extortion and in the accomplishment of this purpose a court must look squarely at the real nature of the transaction, thus avoiding, so far as lies within its power, the betrayal of justice by the cloak of words, the contrivances of form, or the paper tigers of the crafty.

As Promised, More On My Correspondence With A Presidential Candidate

2011-02-02T06:00:00.001-08:00

As promised, today I would like to share with you the response that I send to Dee's email:

Hello, Mrs. Neveu,

I must tell you that I am very impressed that you took the time to write to me personally after you were informed of my blog posting. Your care and attention to detail is most definitely something to be admired. Please be assured that it was not my attempt to make light of your efforts, nor your campaign, but quite to the contrary, I am impressed with the message that you are trying to send to the American people regarding the fact that we should be looking to non-career politicians when it comes time to choose our leaders. I was most definitely not attempting to lump you in with another group of candidates, but was simply providing to my readers some information on the 5 lesser-known candidates that I had read about in recent news articles.

I myself would like to see our next President be, as you say, "an average citizen" and not a career politician that is beholden to special interest donors and political parties. Let me also assure you that while it may be the case that you are viewed by some Americans, as you said, to be "the wrong race group, wrong gender, wrong social class," I most definitely do not see you as being any of those things. I want our next President to be a caring, involved, understanding American who has worked hard and experienced the same things that the rest of us have, regardless of race, gender, or social class. I do truly wish you the very best of luck with your campaign and hope that you are successful in showing America that we need to look for better options when it comes to electing our political leaders.

As for my sarcasm, it is never intended to offend, but as those who know me can attest, is my sometimes failing attempt at humor. I apologize if I have offended you in any way, but please note that it was not my intention. Also, please know, that my sarcasm was not directed at you, but most definitely at our current President.

As for my "high horse", please be assured that I am product of the public school system in California whose first job at 15 was bagging groceries and sweeping floors, and I've worked long, hard hours ever since for what we have. We are a middle class family that has spent the past 100 years doing our best to make the best life possible for ourselves in a place where our grandparents worked in the fields as children, allowing us the opportunities they never had through their own hard work.

Regarding your views on the issues that you provided for me in your correspondence, I think I would most definitely agree with you much more often than we would disagree. I really hope that you have the opportunity to get those common sense views out in front of the American people between now and election day.

With my utmost respect and regard,
William L. Savastano

And also as promised, here is Dee's follow up response to me:

Hello Mr. Savastano,

Thank you very much, you are very kind to have taken the time to read my note, and reply back with such thoughtful words. I certainly appreciate your communication, you are a decent and respectable person.

After reading your note, I'm glad that we both politically agree. No, I'm not offended by what you wrote in your article, in fact I got a good laugh out of the article, and so did my family and friends. Your not alone, ABC News also gave me a similar review without first speaking to me.

I really do believe that media and the public should know about all candidates, of course the popular known "big wigs", but also should those who are unknown, like myself, whether "nutty" or not. I think that it is good to hear what each candidate's intentions (policies) would be. Of course, there are candidates who fit the mould for being absolutely "nuts" in character and beliefs, but hey they should have an opportunity to be heard before being judged. Hey, you never know if a "diamond" can be found in the "rough", something that would be the best thing discovered, although it might be out of the realm a bit. I believe if we don't "venture" out some, we can never "discover" better possibilities.

Keep writing Mr. Savastano, because at least you have been fair in "digging" up the unknowns that need to be heard too, and then judged. Hey, some attention is better than none at all (smile).

As for myself, trust me, I'm well aware how "crazy" this is for me to be trying such a venture. Sometimes, I think to myself..."am I nuts to think that America could be ready for my type of revolution". In any event, I researched for almost a year about the position, and consulted with family and friends, who although supportive, believe that I won't get too far, because truth is I'm "unusual" of a candidate, not the typical character of "royalty/celebrity". However, I went way out to set things up to be a candidate, and I'm one to just put my best foot forward, for whatever it is worth, so long as I know that I really tried to do the best of my ability, and if it doesn't work, well I certainly did try.

For the record, a lot of what I think is really great for America, at least I think so, and so do those that I do manage to talk to in the public in person. I don't mention all of my ideas or thoughts on my Website, just the "unusual" stuff, because current politics do change up a lot. Sometimes, the folks at the top who "rule" over us, don't really understand our needs, and so they don't make us very happy most times. I'm not saying that they are horrible, because I believe that they too are doing their best, even if it isn't what we really want. Problem is that they don't really listen to us "little" citizens, who elect them into office to work for us, once they get the spot, they forget us and their promises. A lot of them too, love the "good" life that they are provided with the public's money. I can't speak for other Candidates (known or unknown), but I was never wrapped up in too much material wealth, sounds "crazy" I'm sure. For instance, I really wouldn't want to live in the White House for many reasons....1. its too big for my small family, and could "perhaps" save money of having small families live there, and instead use it to fundraise for America's needed budget, 2. I enjoy visiting museums, which to me is the White House, but I don't find it a cozy thought to live in a museum, just not my style for comfort, 3. When I read about the history of the White House, there were a lot of deaths in that place, those that aren't really mentioned to the public unless you read it all on your own by digging back (not just some of the Presidents, but also children, women, etc.) thats kind of "creepy" to me, and so no, I don't desire to live in the White House, but I would love to help my Country, which seems to be needing a lot of help these days. As I said to you, if you read the Constitution...the President's job is the best to get, if you can, Congress is different, although they all seem to have time to play "golf" (smile).

Anyway, it is impossible for me to win this venture, I'm sure, but Mr. Savastano I'll do my best and stay for as long as I can, if nothing else, it will be an experience. Thank you so much again for caring to write back to me, it means a lot. Please continue to write your articles, its wonderful to have someone like you out there for the average citizen, and you do have a great sense of humor, I enjoy your articles.

PS: My thought on the situation in Egypt. Although, I understand that the President had a hard time saying anything because of past benefits in foreign policy with Egypt with Mubarak, but reality is I would have told him to "leave Egypt" because it is evident that the citizens don't want him in charge of them anymore. I can't understand why Mubarak wouldn't have left once it got that violent over there for him, and he still hasn't left, but he certainly needs to go...."nuts", maybe he thinks the citizens will change their mind (smile).... if it were me, I would have left already.

My thought on the Patriotic Act (which is due for extending)... I'm in the middle, I understand that citizens feel that their human rights are a bit violated and there is profiling in the current Act, but lets also face it, America will never be the same again after 911 and we need to be safe. I don't care for big Government, but we do need some. The current Patriotic Act has some good stuff, and some stuff that they can perhaps change a bit. Well, lets see what our current politians will do with this Act up for review.

Please put me on your list when you write your articles. I'm new on Facebook too. Good luck to you also in your career.

Have a great day,
Deonia (Dee) Neveu
"A Real Vote For The People"
www.DeoniaNeveu.com

As I stated yesterday, I was really impressed with Dee's attention to detail and personal exchange with me on her candidacy and the issues facing America today. I agree whole-heartedly with Dee that we need some political candidates that are not life-long politicians, but actual hard-working, everyday Americans who have been where the people have been.

Humbly Surprised When One Of The Presidential Candidates Responds To My Article

2011-02-01T05:30:00.000-08:00

Much to my surprise, not too long after publishing my article on Thursday, January 26th, "Who's Runnin' in 2010?", I heard from one of the Presidential candidates that was featured. Quite frankly, the most realistic of the five candidates, Deonia (Dee) Neveu took the time to write to me personally, and I just wanted to share our correspondence with you over the coming days as it was quite a great experience for me that my humble article actually reached the eyes of someone like Dee, who is taking the time out of her life to try to make a difference in American politics. I must say that I found Dee to be very well-spoken on the issues, and pleasantly in-line with what I think a lot of us are looking for in a Presidential candidate. Here is what Dee wrote to me:

Dear Mr. William L. Savastano,

I personally didn't catch your Article about me, but someone else I know did and sent it to me.

Thanks for the moment of attention you gave me in your article regarding Candidates for 2012. Although you were kind, you were also sarcastic. I see how you lumped me in with "Vampires and Drug Addicts - weirdos for President.

I know its crazy to see me even attempt to be a President for the United States, lets face it, I'm the wrong race group, wrong gender, wrong social class, and to top it all off no political experience, I'm certainly "out of the box" for what we are used to having for a Leader. Although, I'm no where saying I'm as good as Jesus, but folks back then saw him as a poor Jew, who wasn't from the type of what they were accustomed to for a leader, and disqualified him as well. Of course, you can only get my point here if your a Christian, and if not I can give you some non-Christian examples. It's wrong and its ignorant to constantly judge a book by its cover. You should read the book first, and be sure you understand its content first before placing your judgement.

First and foremost, I may not have political experience, but I've had to live as an average citizen and be affected by "experienced" politicians. Most all the "experienced" politicians come up through the "same school of thought and character", and they really are limited on how they see and resolve issues for us, because a lot of them haven't lived as average, and if they ever have, they forgot where they once "came from". The current politicians are really all about themselves and not about everyone, the door is "shut" to outsiders. I want to also tell you that common sense is not something always taught or learned in school, sometimes its innate, and you either have it or you don't. Just because a citizen is unknown or hasn't gone to an "ivy league" school doesn't mean that they don't have better common sense than those put at the top and exposed for their social and educational status.

Until citizens have had enough "fake" speeches and empty promises by the current leaders, and if you want "real change", then you'll have to search for something "outside of the box" to add variety, and have more choices, otherwise we'll always complain and have "politics as usual", which aren't you sick of already?

If nothing more, the Constitution allows me to at least try to apply to be a political leader, and it is my natural born American right, if I choose to exercise it. Whether you agree or not with someones leadership qualifications, everyone who applies is not a "nut". In the Constitution qualifications are minimum for the Presidency - do I need to quote them to you, or have you read the Constitution? In fact, the President doesn't have as much power as those in Congress. Those in Congress can be younger, and don't have to be American born, and they are actually the ones to "declare" war, not the President, he can ask for it, but it has to be approved by Congress. Our Government was set up with "checks & balances", and we fought away from the "crown-elite", and so there is opportunity for Americans, but of course not everyone is interested in being a political leader, so don't knock down those that apply, who qualify in accordance to the Constitution.

Back in 1872 Victoria Woodall, a White woman, was a Candidate to be President, and back then women didn't have voting rights, and to top it off she appointed Frederick Douglas as her Vice President, a Black man. Imagine how "nuts" they thought she was, but I see her as courageous because she was "out of the box" and dared to promote real change. Of course, she didn't win, and we still keep these old standards in place and writeoff unique Candidates and keep "politics as usual", and as you can see it hasn't made much of a better America today.

Anyway, as you mentioned--my website doesn't really talk about too many current issues but instead give some "bizarre" thought or what you would consider "crazy", not creative ideas, for example, I'm not interested in living in the White House, but hey look at the brighter side, someone who doesn't want to live in the White House would cost the public less money, and we can use the House to gain money instead by fundraising for America. Hey, America will soon find itself desperate for unique ideas to gain revenue again. The current Government leaders, not to say that they are horrible, but they always talk about either cutting or raising taxes as a solution to everything and/or for everyone else, but not for themselves personally.

Now, I've spent a tremendous amount of time trying to prove my character to you Mr. Savastano, and I could have spent it on more meaningful topic, like my thought on current issues. I won't sit here and tell you I'm an expert in everything, because I'm not, but I think I have some good thoughts and ideas. For one thing in regards to the Healthcare Bill, I do like parts of it, but not all of it, and therefore I believe that some of it should be Repealed. I read some of the Healthcare Bill, enough to see that it isn't all good for us Americans. Some policies in the Healthcare Bill don't even deal with healthcare, just pure Government regulation on too much stuff. I could be wrong, but personally, I don't think that President Obama really read that entire Bill before signing it. Here is one more point on my view, I don't believe that it makes any sense at all to cut funding for our defense department (military), why, because we are in war situations already, and more to come, and that is an area that needs to be in top shape and well funded. Even though I am somewhat Anti-war, I believe if your going to engage in any fighting, then you better fight hard and do your thing, or don't bother to make the attempt. These are just some of my "nutzy" thoughts for you to consider.

Anyway, if your interested in talking to me any further, you know how to reach me, but that is of course, if you can come off your "high horse" to talk to an unknown Mom like myself, who is a Candidate for 2012. Oh, and by the way, being a Mom is not a loose or bad qualification to possess. You came from a woman, and women are the real backbones of this Country. Have a great day Mr. Savastano.

Peace Be With You,
Deonia (Dee) Neveu
"A Real Vote For The People"
www.DeoniaNeveu.com

I truly hope that you find Dee's response to me as exciting and intriquing as I did. I quite honestly really got a kick out of it. I hope that by sharing my correspondence with Dee, it will help others to see just how important it is to pay attention to the issues and involve themselves in the political process. Tomorrow, I will share with you my response to Dee and her response, in turn, to me.

Congressman John Campbell On Reducing Spending & Our National Debt

2011-01-31T06:00:00.000-08:00

I have commented on the ballooning national debt and spending many-a-time as of late, and today, I'd like to share something pretty amazing with you. It is a proposal by the evil Republicans that would turn back the federal government's spending to 2006 levels. I personally think this is a great idea! I'd say we should cut back to a point way further back in time, but I guess we have to start somewhere, right?

From Congressman John Campbell:

In my opinion, our exploding national debt is the biggest threat to America's future security, prosperity and hegemony in the world. This will come as no great surprise to regular readers of this missive. If buyers and holders of our debt, many of whom are foreign, begin to doubt our ability to pay these debts, we would experience rapid increase in interest rates, escalating deficits due to increased interest due on the national debt and a new economic decline. All of this will create a tailspin from which it will be difficult to recover. It came on quickly for Greece and Ireland and it could come on quickly for us. Remember that our debt is the consequence of fast increasing annual deficits.

Given that premise, our greatest national priority today must be to reduce those deficits and put ourselves on a path to a balanced budget. To do that, we need to do three things:

1. Generate sustained private sector economic growth in order to raise revenue to the federal government. Raising tax rates will not result in sustained new revenue but promoting growth through regulatory reform and consistency as well as long term low taxes will.

2. Reform entitlements to reduce their cost.

3. Reduce spending in so-called "discretionary" spending which is basically everything the federal government does (defense, courts, parks) outside the entitlement transfer programs.

The debate over how much to cut or reform is just beginning and will go one for the next 2 years at least. But last Thursday, I and a few other members of the Republican Study Committee launched the first salvo.

The Republican leadership has pledged to roll back spending to 2008 levels. We actually think we can do better than that. So, we rolled out a proposal to reduce non-security discretionary spending back to 2006 levels. This will save roughly $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Unlike some previous spending reduction proposals, this one is quite specific with over 100 items of cuts or eliminations. You can see the entire list here.

We rolled this out at a well-attended press conference in the Capitol last Thursday. Many press reports that evening and the next day were quite positive. But, a number contained words suggesting that we were "slashing" government or making "draconian" or "huge" reductions. It is true that we eliminated a number of whole programs and, in some cases, reduced spending in a department by 30%. But, if all we are doing is rolling back to 2006 levels, then by definition if we cut spending by 30%, that means that department had seen a 30% increase in spending over the last 5 years.

Have you seen your income rise by 30% since 2006? I doubt that many of you have. In fact, I would guess that many, if not most of you, are making less or spending less than you were in 2006. I don't think it is too much to ask for government to do the same. Besides, was the government woefully underfunded in 2006? Is the government noticeably better today because it is spending more?

We must do this. What we are proposing here is more than either Republican or Democratic leadership seem ready to do right now. Our little band of deficit crusaders will attempt to persuade them to be more aggressive in confronting the problem. But, we cannot stop here. We must reduce defense spending as well for the same reasons. This position of mine is more controversial, particularly with many of my fellow Republicans. You will hear more from me on this subject in the coming weeks. And, we also need to get to entitlement reform and pro-growth policies.

There is no one solution to our debt problem. Fixing it will take many acts. This is just the first one. But, we must be bold. It is not enough to look like we are trying to fix the problem. We have to actually fix it. Time is running out if we don't.

Let Rahm Run...So We Can Kick His Ass!

2011-01-28T06:00:00.000-08:00

I have never liked Rahm Emanuel, and I truly hope he loses his bid to become the mayor of Chicago. I am glad that he is gone from Washington and will not miss him, though his replacement, William Daley is just another Chicago politican in the White House, a former Chase Executive Committee member, who while the President hates bank executives, obviosuly loves this freakin' guy!

I do, however, as much as I think he's a total DB, think that Rahm Emanuel should be allowed to run in that mayoral race. See, in order to run for mayor in Chicago, you are supposed to have lived in the city in the past year. Well, Emanual was living in Washington, working at the White House. Two voters have brought a suit against Emanuel, stating that he is not eligible to run for mayor due to that "lived in the city in the past year" clause, but I think while well-meaning, that clause was put in place for obvious reasons and should also be nullified in certain circumstances.

If someone has shown that they have a history of living in the city, but have not lived there in the past year because they have been serving in a higher office, or serving in the armed forces, or serving a worthwhile cause that has taken them out of the city, the should still be allowed to run for mayor.

Again, while I don't like this guy, he quite clearly has earned the right to run for mayor of the city of Chicago. We should let him on the ballot and then kick his ass, not pursue this chicken-shit way of winning. We are better than that.

OC Bankruptcies Up 28%

2011-01-27T06:00:00.000-08:00

As reported by the OC Metro - Bankruptcies in Orange County, up 28%; Up 35.1% in California Central District:

Some 18,863 individuals and businesses filed for bankruptcy last year, up 28 percent from 2009, when numbers totaled 14,739, according to new stats from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District.

Chapter 7 filings dominated in 2010; a total of 15,764 were reported in the period. That number is up 26.7 percent from 2009. Chapter 13 bankruptcies saw the next largest total, with about 2,894 reported. That number is up 42.1 percent from the prior year.

Chapter 11 bankruptcies, on the other hand, dropped 21.3 percent. There were a total of 203 filings, according to the stats.

For the entire seven-county Central District – which includes Orange, L.A., Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo – a total of 142,802 individuals and businesses filed for bankruptcy in 2010, up 35.1 percent from 2009.

Who's Runnin' In 2012?

2011-01-26T06:00:00.000-08:00

The field of Presidential hopefuls for 2012 is starting to take shape. While many of the expected big-name candidates are still doing their dance of acting like a shy girl on prom night, some of the more colorful candidates are already well on their way with their campaigns.

One such candidate is Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, a self-proclaimed vampire that not only drinks the blood of his girlfriend and mistresses two times a week, but says "Certain criminals, instead of being put in jail, they should be brutally tortured and impaled. Upon them being found guilty of their crimes I'll beat them, torture them, dismember them and decapitate them." Sharkey adds, "I won't be bullied, I won't be blackmailed. Criminals and terrorists will fear me along with corrupt law enforcement officials. I will not tolerate crime or terrorism."

Game over! Can I have my ballot now? My decision is made! I see The Impaler has read my platform on crime, punishment and keeping the peace! Well, I must admit I adapted it from Vlad Tepes, Prince of Wallachia's platform, but a good idea is a good idea, right?

When asked about his chances of winning, Sharkey comments that basically with as bad a candidate that Sarah Palin is, and with how much people hate her, he's a much lesser evil in comparison.

Another notable candidate that has already filed his application to run for President in 2012, is Miami Beach resident Raphael Herman. Herman has run for mayor of Miami Beach six times and claims that fraudulent election results are the only cause of his six-time losing streak. Most notable about Herman is that he is not a naturally born U.S. citizen. When asked about the President having to have been born in the U.S., he claims he has evidence that President Barak Obama was actually born in Kenya and will use that evidence to cite precedence when he is elected President. "I was not born in America. I was born in Israel, but you see [President Barack Obama] wasn't born in this country either. I have his birth certificate."

Deonia "Dee" Neveu, a mother of five from Virginia has also filed her paperwork for her presidential bid. She seems to be wanting to point out to Americans who are misguidedly looking for a President with a wealth of experience that the constitution doesn't actually call for any type of political experience, and in fact, believes that the constitution was written so that any American could give becoming President a shot. "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself," says Neveu. "I don't want to live in the White House. "I would like to use a part of the White House to host fundraising events for America." Well, at least she has more political experience that our current President did when he began his campaign, right?

A reformed heavy drug user (from California, of course) who has found God, Mosheh Thezion is also running for President in 2012, though he is saying right up front that he doesn't like how he looks when he smiles, so we can expect not to see any smiles on the campaign trail. "They'll just dig it up anyway," said Thezion. "I hate politicians who lie. I tell the truth, I have nothing to hide, why would I want to hide something?" Seems like Thezion equates smiling to lying, doesn't he? I bet he was a huge fan of George the Great Satan Junior! Thezion follows up his statement that he used to use "pounds and pounds" of marijuana, cocaine, meth and alcohol before "giving up his sinful ways" by saying, "I grew up a loose liberal which is why I'm a conservative today." As I have always said, a liberal is a conservative that either hasn't hit rock bottom in their liberal ways, been the victim of a crime, or simply come to their senses yet.

Thezion also says that he will "abolish the Internal Revenue Service" and "pay off the entire national debt, permanently." I like how that sounds. Maybe I can get vampire guy to agree to the same financial policy.

Rounding out our cavalcade of interesting Presidential hopefuls is Rutherford B. Hayes, not to be confused with the 19th president of the United States by the same name. Rutherfor says, "The current administration is engulfed with socialists, communists, and marxists as well as insatiable condesending egos." Yes, a birds go tweet!

We've still got a long way to go before we start widdlin' down the pack and see if the vampire, Israeli, inexperienced mom, or guy with the same name as the 19th President, can give the likes of The Master & Commander, Mrs. Once Rodham-Clinton Now Just Clinton, The Lady Who Really Liked To Say The Word Maverick Last Time, and clear great choice Mitt Romney a run for their money. Either way, maybe we shouldn't be so closed-minded when it comes to platforms, America. Just because you're a total nut job doesn't mean you shouldn't be setting U.S. policy. I mean, hell, we let Pelosi do it, and The Impaler isn't nearly quite as frightening....

Why Is Polygamy Illegal? What's Our Deal?

2011-01-25T06:00:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's look at marriage, civil unions, the church, and the state have quite naturally lead me to another side of the argument. It is a side of the argument that most people dismiss as the right wing nut jobs just coming up with a right field reason for marriage to remain between one man and one woman, but I honestly want to give the argument its due.

Like I said yesterday, how about we have marriages be the union from God and the church, and civil unions be the unions granted by the state? We let the churches decide what they consider to be a marriage, and we let the people and the government decide what they consider to be a civil union.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that a marriage is between one man and one woman, which for the most part, is how most religions define marriage. Now, let’s also say, for the sake of argument, that a civil union could be between one man and one woman, and one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Marriage would be defined by the moral doctrine of the church, and civil unions would be defined by the legal doctrine of the state. I argue, however, if the state can allow a civil union between two consensual parties, why then, can it not allow a civil union between three or more consensual parties? A business entity can exist with more than just two people, so why not a civil union?

We could only allow someone to be a member of one civil union at a time, regardless of how many people are in that civil union. We wouldn't allow bigamy, (I mean, we're not animals) but that being said, if our civil unions are only governed by the state, why not allow them for three or four, or more people? Consenting adults, all taxpayers, not living off the state in any way, law-abiding, good people, living together in the same home - truly a collective. The gender make-up, totally up to the people involved.

Did I just ruffle your feathers there? Did all of you forward thinking, open-minded, environmentally-conscious, ahead-of-the-curve when it comes to living right people just stop agreeing with me? What's the problem? You want conservatives to be more open-minded, so what is more open-minded than polygamy? In America, it would simply be one of our civil unions that exists beyond just two people.

We have tax tables for single people, tax tables for joined couples, tax tables for joined couples with children, so why not have a tax table for the trio, quarter, quintet, sextet, and so on? Granted, it might get a little crowded at the court house, or in a hospital room that is just for the patient and their spouses, but hey, we can deal with that on a case by case basis.

All right, America, I await your schooling on all the reasons why a civil union can be between ANY TWO PEOPLE, but cannot be between ANY THREE OR MORE PEOPLE?
...

Marriage, Civil Unions, The Church & The State

2011-01-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

With all that seems to be going on right now in the great state of Taxifornia with the budget and taxes, it would seem that the ol' "gay marriage" debate has taken a bit of a back seat for now. I'm honestly quite comfortable with that as it seems that when the issue flares up, people really tend to stop looking at it rationally and let emotions get the best of them.

I'd like to take this pause to put together something that I had been planning on posting for quite some time, yet have not had a chance to get around to doing. How about we stoke the fire a bit?

I believe that most conservatives have a very good, black and white understanding of something. Let me explain. I have a marriage to my wife that is in place because we, based on our religious beliefs, held a ceremony in which we, in the eyes of God, joined together in a marriage. I also have a civil union to my wife that is in place because the person who performed our ceremony is also a state-appointed officiator of civil unions sponsored by the County of Orange, and by proxy, the state of Taxifornia. It is a very simple concept, and quite honestly, goes very well with the idea of the separation of church and state. Our marriage applies to all of the religious beliefs that we have - the afterlife, together forever, adultery, sins, etc., and our civil union applies to all of the stately legality - our legal obligations to each other and to the state that will exist throughout our union, as well as the legal obligations we have to each other if we split up and the legal obligations we have to each other pertaining to any children we might have together. Do you see how there are two separate things going on at the same time here? Our marriage is governed by our moral obligations and our civil union is governed by our legal obligations. I say that as a nation, we really should start looking at these as two separate things that occur concurrently.

Now, I am going to divert from the conservative pack here, but in the interest of finding a solution to our problem, let me say that when it comes to civil unions granted by the state, I am all for them. I am even all for them if we are talking about two men or two women wanting to enter into a civil union. I truly believe that this is a matter of state and should be governed by the state, and as such, any two people, regardless of gender, even transgendered, should have the same exact rights as everyone else in their civil unions. Two men and/or two women who have the same civil union certificate that my wife and I have should have the same exact rights granted by the state that we do.

One problem, however, that we need to fix before moving forward with our separation of church and state is that I do not have a "civil union" certificate issued by the state, but a "marriage" certificate. The state should not be allowed to issue such a thing as a "marriage" certificate. It should be called a "civil union" certificate, issued just like a business license, or any other state document. This should be issued regardless of gender and religion, again, just like any other state document. A "marriage" certificate, to run concurrently with a "civil union" certificate, should be issued by the church that performed the ceremony.

Do you see where I am going with this? When it comes to morality, let's deal with and seek an audience with religion. When it comes to legality, let's deal with and seek an audience with the state. Let's have a separation there. The religions do not get to dictate to the state who can have a civil union, and the state cannot dictate to the religions what they consider to be a marriage.

If the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state in the literal sense, then why is it that the act of joining two people together in a court house in the eyes of the state carries the same name as the act of joining two people together in a church in the eyes of God? I argue that they should not be called the same thing, as they are truly two completely separate things. Should we not all be getting civil unions at the court house and marriages in a church? I can go through a ceremony at a church, but if it is not performed by someone licensed by the state, then my civil union is not valid to the state. The marriage is valid to the church and to God, but the civil union does not occur unless the ceremony has the approval of the state by means of the ceremony being performed by a state-approved agent. Does it not make sense, then that a civil union could be an agreement by two members of the same sex? It's a legal agreement witnessed by a state-appointed agent. Makes sense to me.

But, then, what also makes sense to me, is that if I am getting married in a church, or being married by an agent of the church, should not that marriage adhere to the traditional definition of one man and one women that the religion adheres to? That also seems to make sense to me. So, man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the church, marriage - Man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the state, civil union - Man and woman who have done both, either in a ceremony performed by one person with both church and state ordainment, or two people, one with church credentials and one with state credentials, or at two separate ceremonies - in the eyes of the church and God, marriage - in the eyes of the state, civil union.

It all boils down to a game of semantics, then, doesn't it? Now, mind you, I am saying that a man and woman with a civil union should have the same exact rights and privileges that a man and man or woman and woman have through their civil unions. Now, if the semantics are important and we need to start talking about what the churches themselves call the joining of two people who are the same sex, then isn't that a matter for the church, and not a matter for the state? Isn't that what you wanted in the first place? Separation of church and state. If two men or two women can convince the Catholic church to marry them, then hey, more power to you, but that should have nothing to do with my ballot, my courts, and my government. If a man and a woman, and a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, all have the same rights under the civil unions that are issued by the state, then at the state level, and honestly, even at the federal level, the argument should be over. You can call it whatever you want to, but legally, they should all be civil unions that are issued by the state. Anything beyond a civil union should be between people and the churches, not people and the state. Like I said, separation of church and state.

Tax Hikes & Spending Cuts The Taxxy Brown Way...

2011-01-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

I will give you, as I have said many-a-time before, it was most definitely time for Arnie to go. I would have much rather seen, however, a legitimate business woman as our new Taxifornia Taxernor than lifetime politician and union whipping boy Taxxy Brown. If this were a Presidential election, we would have just re-elected Jimmy Carter. Way to go, Taxifornia!

So, now, that the issue of Taxernor is settled until we can try to get a business person in there again, let's talk about the main reason that I am concerned about Taxxy Brown...taxes. Sure, we'd all like to pay nothing (and hey! half of you actually do!), and I realize that we do need to pay something so that we can fund our infrastructure, military, and what-not, but for those of us that are in that 50% that do pay taxes, should we not undertake the initiative to try to keep as much of the money that we earn that the other 50% get to pay - nothing? It may not be a reality, but at least it gives us something to shoot for, right?

That, being said, I must also say that Taxxy Brown is at least, unlike most Spendocrats, willing to cut some spending, taking a step closer to at least getting the 50% who pay no income taxes to help foot the bill as well. He as also said that he is going to take his tax increases to the voters, so we will see if that actually happens.

What taxes are going to get raised and what spending is going to get cut if Taxxy Brown gets his way? A lot of programs are going to be reduced, and the temporary tax hikes implemented by the Taxinator will be kept in place for another five years! Five years?! Yep, five years!:

Income: A 0.25 percent surcharge on each personal income tax rate, which would generate $3.2 billion in the next 18 months. But, if your personal income tax rate is zero, does that mean you have to pay 0.25 percent? What do you think?

Dependents: A reduction in the tax credit for dependents from $227 to $99, for $1.9 billion over 18 months.

Sales tax: A 1 percentage point increase in the state sales tax - from 5 to 6 percent, bringing in $4.5 billion over 12 months.

Licences: An increase in vehicle license fees from 0.65 percent of a car's value to 1.15 percent, bringing in $1.3 billion over 12 months.

Proposed spending and service reductions
Among Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed solutions to help close a $25 billion deficit are the following:

Cell phones: The state pays for about 96,000 cell phones for state workers. Brown would cut that number by at least 50 percent.

State vehicles: State workers use about 13,600 state-owned cars, pickups and vans, not including about 12,000 used in public safety. Only cars needed for critical functions would be kept.

Cal Fire: In the many wildland areas that have been developed, emergency response would be transferred from state firefighters to local firefighters. State firefighters would be cut from four workers per engine to three.

State jobs: 57,000 workers would get 10 percent pay cuts, and hundreds of state jobs would be eliminated as the state transfers more responsibilities to counties in foster care, incarceration and social services.

Redevelopment agencies: Redevelopment agencies would be phased out to save billions of dollars, although they would be allowed to finish existing projects. The money saved would first go to the general fund and in future years would be given to schools, cities and counties.

Courts: A permanent reduction of $200 million annually for the state's courts.

Governor's office: A 25 percent reduction in spending, or $4.5 million cut.

Parks: State parks would lose $11 million more in funds, requiring continued park closures.

Medi-Cal: Benefits would be capped, with limits placed on prescriptions (six per month per recipient ) - unless they are lifesaving - hearing aids ($1,510 a year) and durable medical equipment ($1,604 a year). Co-payments of $5 would be required for most visits. Doctor's visits would be limited to 10 per year.

Disabled and elderly: California is one of the few states that provide day care centers for disabled and elderly adults who might otherwise be in nursing homes; Brown would eliminate this program altogether to save $176 million in 2011-12.

Healthy Families: Fewer than 1 million children receive medical insurance under this program because their families do not qualify for Medi-Cal. Brown would eliminate the vision benefit and increase premiums and co-payments.

So, that's the laundry list that Taxxy Brown is going to propose. We'll have to see if it makes it to the ballot, and what he is going to do when voters shoot it down...

GobiernoUSA.gov

2011-01-19T06:00:00.000-08:00

One of the ideals that I still remain steadfast in, and most likely will for the foreseeable future, is that just how a nation has a flag, a national symbol, a national anthem, and so on, so should a nation have an official language. As many of you are currently reading this musing in my native American tongue of English (or American English to the English) could probably guess, I propose that our official language in the USA should be English. I propose that no child graduate from high school in the United States without at least a remidial command of the English language (I know we say that now, but I mean, really, actually be able to speak English), and more importantly, I think that any interaction you have with the federal, state, and local government should be in English.

So, you're saying to yourself, I've been reading Old Man Savastano's rantings for years, and this is nothing new, so why the re-hash on making English the official language of the USA?

Well, I bought a new computer and was cleaning up the pre-supplied "Favorites" that Microsoft thinks I will need and one of the folders is "Websites For United States", and in that folder is one familiar web site, "USA.gov" and the one unfamiliar web site, "GobiernoUSA.gov". Go on, check it out. http://www.gobiernousa.gov. It is so nice to see the American taxpayer paying for twice the web site because we, as a nation, have never really had the balls to pick an official language, even though we all have known for quite some time which one it should be.

How much of our tax dollars go to creating web sites and printing things in other languages? Should not part of the process of being naturualized be that you can do so in English? Oh, wait, hold on a second, it is part of the process. You DO need to have a basic command of the English language in order to pass our naturalization tests. So, why then, would you need a U.S. government website in Spanish? Oh yeah, that's right. We can't forget to take care of our uninvited guests as well. I mean, when you throw a party and people that you have never even met before and don't seem to know anyone you invited just happen to show up, you offer them a drink and a seat, don't you? Quite clearly, in America we do, and to top it off, we make sure that we offer you those bebidas and sillas en Espanol because though you have no respect for our laws, we still want you to feel right at home...

The U.S. Air Force: Solving America's Problems Since 1947

2011-01-18T06:00:00.000-08:00

Obama: General, where is Air Force One?

Air Force General: Mr. President, we recently invented an invisibility cloak for Air Force One

Obama: No way...

Air Force General: That's right, sir, the plane and all of its contents are currently invisible. Please board the plane, and we will get underway. Have a good trip, sir.

Mercedes-Benz Sees 15.3% Growth In 2010

2011-01-17T06:00:00.001-08:00

According to an official statement from Stuttgart, relayed to me through BenzInsider.com, Mercedes-Benz has reportedly managed a year-on-year worldwide sales growth of 15.3 percent. This figure is due largely to the demand from the Chinese market as well as in the United States.

Over the past year, Mercedes-Benz totaled 1.16 million vehicles sold, which subsequently allowed Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz’s parent company, to exceed its projections that involved a 10-percent growth across the board from Merc to Maybach, the uber-luxury vehicle brand, to Smart, with its compact urban cars. Overall, Daimler was able to sell 1.26 million vehicles from the three makes—a 12-percent increase from 2009′s numbers.

“Last year was a complete success for us,” stated Dieter Zetsche, Daimler AG chairman and the head of Mercedes-Benz Cars. “We have grown stronger as the world-wide market for passenger cars and as a result can win market share.”

While the annual increase is very impressive on its own, the consistency by which this growth was achieved is also quite amazing. Globally, Mercedes-Benz was able to experience double-digit growth on a monthly basis. In China, Merc experienced exceeded double of their annual sales from 2009. In the US, sales increased by 14 percent over the year.

Aside from the numbers showing Mercedes-Benz’s strong year, the sales growth is a reflection of the global automotive market’s recovery, particularly the premium or luxury car segment. These figures are clear indicators of the rebounding market. Zetsche says the brand can start 2011 with confidence, thanks to a competitive product range and numerous new products.”.

56-Year-Old Cross Ruled Unconstitutional

2011-01-14T06:00:00.000-08:00

I honestly do get the argument about the separation of church and state, but for people to sit here today and say that the Christian-based beliefs of the Founding Fathers did not play a role in thier lives and the founding of the United States of America is blatant history revision. I, for one, refuse to support that revision to this nation's history, despite the fact that you're only going to catch me in church a handful of times per decade.

The continuing movement to remove all reference to religion in this country may seem like a good idea to the intellectual elite who look down upon the believers, but trust me, folks, if we just flat out did away with religion as suggested by the Bill Mahers of the world, the ensuing hell on earth with no religious consequences would make you start praying for a return of religion.

As I have said many times before, as long as your beliefs do not harm others, then go right ahead and believe what you want to. If Jewish and Muslim symbols offend you because you are a Christian, then you weren't really paying attention in church, were you? Flip that statement for all the competing religions, and for the non-believer. If you don't believe, then believers should not have a beef with you. It should be your choice. But, that should also mean that the non-believers should not have a beef with believers.

With all of that being said, then you may see why I find it very bothersome to read that a war memorial cross in a San Diego public park was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court because the court says it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion.

It would seem some whiny non-believer who wants to rid the nation of all religious symbolism outside of an actual religious building is getting their way, and I think that it is sad to see the whining of the few being held in higher regard than the will of the many.

This case struck me as nothing more than modern-day, revisionist history, non-believer whining. It involved the nut-job "Judges" at the anything-goes 9th U.S. Distrcit Court of Appeals and a cross that has been in a park, honoring Korean War Veterans for 56 years. 56 years, in the same spot, doing the same thing, just being a cross in a park, a symbol of honor to the men and women who died in service to their country. Then, comes along the non-believer whiner who can't just keep their non-beliefs to themselves, but ironically, as they complain the believers do, must force their non-beliefs on the believers.

Is there really so little good in your life, so little to be happy about that you have to take up a fight against a cross sitting in a park? Really? Why do we listen to these whack-jobs, America? Why are we giving them a voice that is louder than the voice of reason?

Judges rule cross at California park unconstitutional
Associated Press

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the unanimous decision in the dispute over the 29-foot cross, which was dedicated in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans.

The court said modifications could be made to make it constitutional, but it didn't specify what those changes would be.

"In no way is this decision meant to undermine the importance of honoring our veterans," the three judges said in their ruling. "Indeed, there are countless ways that we can and should honor them, but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion."

U.S. Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said the federal government, which is defending the cross, was studying Tuesday's ruling and had no comment.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian legal group, called the ruling an insult to troops.

"The memory of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom shouldn't be dishonored because the ACLU finds a small number of people who are merely offended," said Joe Infranco, the group's senior counsel.

The ruling is the latest in a series of court decisions that have deemed the Mount Soledad cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

The legal fight began in 1989 when atheist Philip Paulson sued the city of San Diego over the cross. Paulson, a Vietnam War veteran, contended that the cross excludes veterans who aren't Christian. Jewish veterans groups also complained the cross excluded them.

State and federal judges have ordered the cross removed, saying it represents an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion. But in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an order that the city take it down that summer, giving lower courts time to hear appeals.

City officials have argued that the cross is part of a secular war memorial, and the cross has been embraced by San Diego residents who in 2005 overwhelmingly approved a measure to preserve it by donating it to the federal government. A judge declared the measure unconstitutional.

Infranco said Tuesday that no one is harmed by the presence of a cross on a war memorial.

"It's tragic that the court chose a twisted and tired interpretation of the First Amendment over the common sense idea that the families of fallen American troops should be allowed to honor these heroes as they choose," he said.

Researchers Track 4,699-Mile Journey Made By One Female Leatherback Sea Turtle

2011-01-13T06:00:00.000-08:00

Many of my long-time readers know that sea turtles have a special place in my heart. I was always fascinated by them growing up, then having taken part in a couple of sea turtle rescues in college, my love for these amazing animals was solidified. I have used some of my blog postings to promote awareness of their plight as they are being driving to extinction by ocean pollution and poachers. I have also posted about some of the ground-breaking research that is going into preserving these turtles. Recently, MSNBC reported on some great revelations in the migratory patterns of the leatherback sea turtle and the amazing journey it makes when moving from fertile feeding grounds to its nesting beaches, two locations that can be thousands of miles apart.

Study tracks turtles' epic journey across South Atlantic
Associated Press

Leatherback turtles swim for thousands of miles across the South Atlantic to get to their feeding grounds, a trip that takes some of them 150 days to complete, researchers said Wednesday.

The findings are important for conservationists looking to protect the turtles from threats such as fishing nets and hooks, which have been blamed for the dramatically depleted population of leatherbacks in the Pacific Ocean, researchers said.

"All of the routes we've identified take the leatherbacks through areas of high risk from fisheries, so there's a very real danger to the Atlantic population," said Brendan Godley, a professor in conservation biology at the University of Exeter.

The five-year study followed the movement of female turtles from the world's largest breeding colony in Gabon, central Africa, as they swam to feeding grounds across the South Atlantic. Once the turtles reach a food-rich habitat, they will stay there for up to five years to build up reserves to reproduce and return to Gabon once they are ready to mate again.

Researchers attached electronic satellite tracking equipment to the backs of 25 female turtles, as they finished nesting on beaches and were returning to the sea.

One female was tracked making a 4,699-mile (7,563-kilometer) journey traveling in a straight line across the South Atlantic from Africa to South America, said Matthew Witt, a marine biologist who took part in the study. At a pace of 30 miles (50 kilometers) a day, that trip took about 150 days of consistent swimming, he said.

"Despite extensive research carried out on leatherbacks, no one has really been sure about the journeys they take in the South Atlantic until now," Witt said. "From a human perspective, the South Atlantic is a vast, vast area. When challenged with that path, how is it that you can get across it and not get lost? I think that's fantastic."

The study identified three migratory routes, taking the turtles from Central Africa to Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and down the coast off southern Africa. But why individual turtles choose one route over another remains one of the biggest questions in sea turtle biology, Witt said.

There are more leatherback turtles in the Atlantic than in the Pacific, where populations have declined dramatically over the past three decades. The exact cause of the dwindling numbers is not clear, although turtle egg harvesting, coastal net fishing and longline fishing have been blamed.

Witt said that the study helped identify 11 nations in the South Atlantic whose territorial waters the turtles pass through, and that those countries could take the lead on marine conservation efforts.

From Congressman John Campbell On The Arizona Shooting

2011-01-12T06:00:00.001-08:00

Today, I would like to share with you the comments of Congressman John Campbell on the Arizona Shooting. He seconds my sentiment from yesterday about the media and their rush to judgement on the cause of the incident, but he also makes some interesting points about the use of local law enforcement as a security force for public officials during public appearances. I can't say that I am entirely onboard with the idea, but providing security for our public officials is defintiely a conversation that we are going to need to have...

"Gabby Giffords: Yes, her name is Gabrielle, but she goes by Gabby around the Capitol. And, while I do not know her well, I know she is a genuinely nice person who is liked by all. Speaker John Boehner put it best when he said, "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve." And, although Congresswoman Giffords was apparently the intended target of this abominable act by an evil man, we all know that there were many other victims. My prayers and those of my family are with Gabby, her family, all of those wounded, and the families of the six who lost their lives. A special prayer for the family of little 9-year old Christina Taylor Green. Their loss, although no greater than the others, is clearly the most senseless and heart wrenching.

There has been much hand-wringing over the nature of political discourse in this country as a result of this heinous crime. Those discussions are at best premature and perhaps inappropriate. At the time of this writing, the person who has been charged with this crime (whose name I will not mention because I do not believe that repulsive criminals deserve any notoriety) appears not to have had any particular political motivation other than derangement. Now is a time for grieving and healing and protecting the future. There will be plenty of time for politics later.

In the past, I have held several public events as a member of Congress similar to the one at which Congresswoman Giffords was shot down. Instead of being in front of a supermarket, they were in front of coffee shops and were attended by hundreds of people each time. At one of these, a couple of groups started shouting very incendiary remarks which incited a rapid and emotional response from everyday people in the crowd. We were concerned that violence could have erupted, so we had the police come and separate out the offending groups. At another of these “coffees”, as I call them, we were required to have a substantial police presence as several groups, again, attempted to disrupt civil conversation. During the interruption, other unstable individuals created a safety concern for the law enforcement officers who were present.

I tell you this not to alarm you or to make any political judgments. I merely wish to make the point that more security is necessary to protect the public as well as Members of Congress at advertised public events at home. And, while I don’t know if every single one of my colleagues has received threats, I do know that every Member I’ve talked to about this has - as have I. Although, until this past weekend there had not been a physical assault upon a Member in the last three decades, the threat is serious and always present.

The security provided by the Capitol Police in Washington is excellent and unmatched. We do not need similar full-time security when we are home. Nor, frankly, do I want it or would I accept it. But, we can use local law enforcement for better protection when the circumstances warrant it. (I’ve utilized Orange County law enforcement in the past and found the support to be excellent).

I am writing this as I am on an airplane traveling to deliver a speech. Any time any of us gets on an airplane, there is a risk. But, we do all we can to minimize that risk, and then we proceed with life. As Members of Congress, we need to have contact with you to do our jobs. We should keep doing that, while sensibly minimizing the risks.

I pray that Gabby Giffords will have the health and strength to give us her opinion soon. My guess is that she will agree."

Congressman John Campbell