Guess What? Less Than 1/3 Of You Are Going To Get To Keep Your Plan You Liked.....Whoops!

Here is the bottom line - Obamacare said over and over again that if you liked your current plan, you got to keep it, right? I know I am not the only one that heard him say that. We all know that we all heard him say that.

Here is the thing, though: the only way that you can ACTUALLY keep your plan is if you have a plan today that has not changed in any "significant" way - deductible, co-pay, benefits - otherwise, your plan becomes subject to the new Obamacare minimum coverage requirement, and if it does not meet those new minimum requirements, guess what? You don’t get to keep that plan after all.

Original estimates that were out while Obamacare was still saying that you could keep your plan stated that up to 67% of you were not going to get to keep your plan. Today's estimates are now stating that it could be as many as 80% of you who will get a policy cancellation notice within the first year of Obamacare.

It is what it is, and we are where we are now, but you have to admit that whole “you can keep your plan” line was a complete and total lie for over 2/3 of the people who were supposedly going to be able to keep their plan, and maybe even more people than that. Oh, and to make it worse, not only are you going to lose your plan, the plan that you have to buy instead is going to cost you up to twice as much. Welcome to Obamacare's America.

Oh, and for anyone who wants to brush this off as being the reporting of crazy right-wingers, here's an excerpt from an NBC investigation:

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”  

That means the Obamacare administration knew in July 2010 that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them. 

Yet President Obamacare, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms.

Taxation Without Representation Across Time

We continually hear from politicians and political commentators that they are worried about the debt and other problems that we are currently creating for future generations.

I was thinking today that while that is a valid concern, we ourselves are already part of a “future” generation that is saddled with the legislation of the past.

I didn’t vote to elect the people that passed the laws that enacted things like the income tax, social security, and medicare, yet I am impacted by those laws every other week when I send a nice chunk of the money I have worked for to the federal government to blow a good chunk of on stupid, wasteful spending.

The biggest problem with this is that I have no way to go back in time to see how things were before income tax, social security, and medicare were enacted.

Is the country a better place with these things in place? I’ll never know firsthand and for sure, will I? Well, at least not until one of us builds a time machine and starts selling tickets.

Just as I am sure that a baby born tomorrow will feel taxed without representation when they are forced to have healthcare coverage whether they like it or not when they roll off mommy and daddy's plan at the young age of 26, I sit here today, feeling that I was taxed without representation when the income tax, social security and medicare were passed long before I was born.

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

You’re going to have to keep working, America! At least longer than you had planned, anyway. A recent survey found that one in five 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 be forced to keep working. What’s wrong with that? Well, the way the socialist retirement system is currently set up, the more you earn in a year that you receive benefits, the less of the social security money you paid into the socialist system you get to keep. You can even earn so much in a year that you get absolutely no social security money at all.

I hope to be in a spot where I have this problem one day, but I am also going to be really pissed off that all of the money I paid into social security over the course of my life will not be making its way back to me, which was the fundamental promise of the program.

Regardless of where I may end up in the year 2041 (the year the socialists want me to retire, at least for now, anyway), I really think now is the time to reconsider all of this socialist retirement program 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, her economy, the world’s economy, and life here on planet Earth have all changed so much that we need to rethink this antiquated nonsense 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 off of which I can live, 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. And despite what the government and all of those liberal politicians out there want us to believe, it is MY money, not theirs. That means I will have been one huge benefactor to the U.S. government 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 Washington, DC. Especially 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?

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

Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court, Taxifornia Supreme Court, Illegal Immigrant rights groups, Dream Act supporters, a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals, and the three to four 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 that 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 heavy load 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.

Maybe It's Time To Start Learning Chinese

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 lifetime.

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 1890s and unless you're pushing 120 years old right now, you have lived in a 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!"

To quote Fidel Castro when he made an unofficial appearance 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 lack of young Cubans interested 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.

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

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, the Master & Commander 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 Committee 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 consensus 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.

Motorists Unfairly Targeted As Cash Cow For Government

My readers 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 enforcement, and emergency services," McKernan writes, "but more often these days, state lawmakers and local officials turn to motorists to generate funds to plug budget 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 politicians $150 million.

"What's more," McKernan says, "state and local 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 and Moulton, and at 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 sped 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 allocate 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."

Private vs. Public Unions / Private vs. Public Sector Employees

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 potentially 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 to 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 healthcare and benefit costs, and go without many of the guaranteed perks that unionized public sector workers do, including, most notably, 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 survival is continuing to grow and our system cannot sustain this pattern indefinitely. 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

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 the 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 their so-called 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 .

Who's Runnin' In 2012?

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 as 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. Rutherford says, "The current administration is engulfed with socialists, communists, and marxists as well as insatiable condescending egos." Yes, and 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?

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?...

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

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.

Licenses: 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

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 naturalized 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...

A Return, Even If Partially, To A System Of Checks And Balances

One great reason to look forward to 2011 is that we will see a return, even if partially, to the system of checks and balances in that putrid cesspool of ridiculous spending known as Washington, D.C. that the Founding Fathers (yep, I’m still going to call them that in 2011) put in place for a very good reason. 

2011 will hopefully see a time when we are not voting for bills on Monday that we are going to get around to having a chance to read next Tuesday; a time when there is a small voice that can say, “Hey, wait a minute, why don’t we wait a minute?” instead of cramming and ramming piece after piece of legislation through voting in the 11th hour when everyone is distracted by the flashy lights and Christmas songs and not really watching what is going on over in Crazy Town.

Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer actually gets to see the cavalcade of foundational system change for the sake of creating a new world order finally stop, or at least slow to a reasonable pace. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees these m-f-ing hot air balloons actually quit with the god damned earmarks like they’ve been promising. When even Tea Party candidates are taking earmarks, it’s not time to change the system, it is time to wipe the damned slate clean and just start over.

Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees the Congress and the Executive Branch curtail the reckless and fruitless spending and spend what is needed, where and when it is actually needed. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees less and less “Change The World” and a whole hell-of-a lot more “Creating Jobs” and “Jump-Starting The Economy.”

I know that you elected him so that you could get your free healthcare and your car note paid without having to actually go out and get a job, or for your papeles, or your mama’s papeles, but it is time for all of us – both those of you who voted for him and those of us who didn’t – to come together to expect this President to deliver on his promises on job creation, boosting the economy, and reducing government spending and the deficit.

I say the two years of playing in the sandbox with your buddies is rightly ended, and now it is time to come in and get to work. He wants Republicans and Democrats to work together? I say we do just that and start holding him accountable to those promises – not the ones where he promised everyone who doesn't pay any income taxes even more free shit, but the ones where he promised to enact actual change on this economy and that damned town he’s been living in for the past two years.

Illegal Immigration & The DREAM Act

I admittedly have failed to comment properly on my feelings and position on the so-called DREAM Act and the reason why I am opposed to it. This has not been due to a lack of position, but, in fact, due to my inability to craft a piece that did my position justice.

In short, I feel that EVERY FOREIGN-BORN person should go through the SAME path to U.S. citizenship. Seems fair, doesn't it? If everyone follows the law, then everyone is on equal footing at the time they start the process. Should you get special consideration and get an easier path to citizenship because you have already been living here for many years, using our public education system and social services? The only scenario by which that could happen would be if you were violating U.S. Immigration law, so the answer to that question should be a resounding, "No!"

My position on this piece of legislation also stems from my view on illegal immigration, and my belief that you should receive punishment for breaking the law, not a reward, especially a reward of preferential treatment. Rather than rehash my own personal view on illegal immigration, I would like to provide for you the following excerpt from "Two Californias" by Victor Hanson.

This excerpt below is from Hanson's larger piece on his experiences while traveling through California's once-rich Central Valley, Hanson's home soil, commenting on the desolate wasteland of poverty and welfare-state conditions that the valley has now become due to overregulation and illegal immigration.

This piece holds a special personal significance to me because of my own family's tie in the first half of the 1900s to agriculture, not in the Central Valley, but right here, in Orange County, where four generations ago, my forbearers took the LEGAL path to citizenship:

Fresno’s California State University campus is embroiled in controversy over the student body president’s announcing that he is an illegal alien, with all the requisite protests in favor of the DREAM Act. I won’t comment on the legislation per se, but again only note the anomaly. I taught at CSUF for 21 years. I think it fair to say that the predominant theme of the Chicano and Latin American Studies program’s sizable curriculum was a fuzzy American culpability. By that I mean that students in those classes heard of the sins of America more often than its attractions. In my home town, Mexican flag decals on car windows are far more common than their American counterparts.

I note this because hundreds of students here illegally are now terrified of being deported to Mexico. I can understand that, given the chaos in Mexico and their own long residency in the United States. But here is what still confuses me: If one were to consider the classes that deal with Mexico at the university, or the visible displays of national chauvinism, then one might conclude that Mexico is a far more attractive and moral place than the United States.

So there is a surreal nature to these protests: something like, “Please do not send me back to the culture I nostalgically praise; please let me stay in the culture that I ignore or deprecate.” I think the DREAM Act protestors might have been far more successful in winning public opinion had they stopped blaming the U.S. for suggesting that they might have to leave at some point, and instead explained why, in fact, they want to stay. What is it about America that makes a youth of 21 go on a hunger strike or demonstrate to be allowed to remain in this country rather than return to the place of his birth?

I think I know the answer to this paradox. Missing entirely in the above description is the attitude of the host, which by any historical standard can only be termed “indifferent.” California does not care whether one broke the law to arrive here or continues to break it by staying. It asks nothing of the illegal immigrant — no proficiency in English, no acquaintance with American history and values, no proof of income, no record of education or skills.

It does provide all the public assistance that it can afford (and more that it borrows for), and apparently waives enforcement of most of California’s burdensome regulations and civic statutes that increasingly have plagued productive citizens to the point of driving them out.

How odd that we over-regulate those who are citizens and have capital to the point of banishing them from the state, but do not regulate those who are aliens and without capital to the point of encouraging millions more to follow in their footsteps. How odd — to paraphrase what Critias once said of ancient Sparta — that California is at once both the nation’s most unfree and most free state, the most repressed and the wildest.

I think Hanson makes some fantastically valid points here. While I understand that illegal immigration and the DREAM Act can be very emotional subjects for quite a large number of people living here in the United States, both citizen and non-citizen alike, I think that a good deal of the people who fall on my side of the fence on this issue are troubled mostly by two factors. This group of people's widespread inability to first admit, then hold themselves accountable for violating the law of the land in which they so desire to live, and secondly, what seems to be more of an allegiance to the place in which they do not want to live than to the place in which they do want to live.

When American citizens break the law, we pay fines or get to live in one of our many taxpayer-funded state or federal correctional institutions. Should it not be the case for the non-citizen who knowingly violated U.S. immigration law?

While it is not my intention to ruffle feathers, but my intention to get people on both sides of the argument to think rationally about this issue, I must ask the question. "If Mexico is so fantastic, why are you here in the United States? If you love Mexico so so very much, why did you not stay and try to fix it - try to fight to make your beloved homeland a better place, even if it is just in your neighborhood, or home town? Why do you fly the Mexican flag above the U.S. flag, yet make the choice to live in the country whose flag you fly below the flag of that nation that you chose to not live in anymore?"

These are not rhetorical questions, mind you. These are questions that many of the people that are being flagged as "racists" for opposing illegal immigration and the DREAM Act genuinely would like to have answered by the people on the opposite side of the argument.

Before you get on your soap box and start yelling out charges of elitism and racism, think on one thing - something that Hanson touches on in his article. If you are playing any game, any sport, in the world in which you are on a team, would you not want the person sitting or standing next to you to have an allegiance to your team above all other teams? Would you not want them playing their heart out just as much as you for your team and not have an underlying allegiance to the other team?

Now, consider, that you are not just playing a game, but you are ensuring the future of the greatest democracy to ever exist in the history of mankind - securing its future for your children, your loved ones, securing it for all the good that nation does in the world. Wouldn't you want the person standing next to you to have an allegiance above all others to your nation, and not some other nation? This is what America wants of her citizens, and I do not think it to be an unreasonable request.

If you watch a documentary on people taking the legal path to citizenship, you will see that there is a point in the immigration process where they are asked to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America above all other nations in the world, including the nation which they have left to come to America. You will see that the people making this pledge take that part of the process very seriously - that they labor on it and give it much thought - they struggle with it, but in most cases, they make that pledge. Most notably, you will see by their emotions, that their pledge is genuine.

The illegal immigrant has never had to make that pledge. They have never actually had to contemplate that choice between allegiance to their home country and ours. They get to straddle the fence. They get to live here while their true loyalty remains elsewhere. We are letting them skip a very important and noteworthy step in joining our team. I do not think it is wrong for Americans to want the people living in this country to not be allowed to skip that step.

We have a legal immigration process in place that has served this nation for quite some time. A legal immigration process that does not reward violation of that process, but in fact, deters violation. Many of us believe that our nation is best served by keeping things that way. That's not elitism, and that's not racism. That, my friends, is American Patriotism, and that, my friends, is what we want from those of you who make the choice to join our team...AMERICAN patriotism.

Not only are you incorrect in thinking that most of those who oppose illegal immigration and the DREAM Act do not want you to be able to join the team, but I believe you would find that most of us actually want you on the team. All we are asking is that you join the team according to the rule book - the same rule book that we are going to expect you to follow once you are a member of the team. You are asking us to believe that you are going to follow that rule book when you and yours have already broken its rules. Do you see how that might be of concern to us? Sadly, I don't think that you do.

Dennis Miller said it best when he commented, "We don't mind you joining the party, we just want you to sign the guest book so we know who's here." Again, it's not that Americans don't want you to join the team, we just want you to do it the right way, and we want you to be dedicated 100% to our team. I don't think that is too much to ask.

There Goes Our President, Re-writing History Again...

Remember "Bush-isms"? It was when George The Great Satan Junior would say something and then we'd get to watch it played over and over again at nauseau and get to hear about how not smart he is be. Well, this morning, I have the pleasure of sharing an "Obama-ism" with you:

"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.

The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.

Granted, The Master and Commander was in a room full of Mexicans, so you can expect him to do some pandering - after all, even Barbara Boxer might be on the chopping block this November, so there's some real fear goin' on out there - but, to throw them into the list of people that were here before America is a prime example of this President's view that the hard-working, law-abiding, American taxpayer should always come second to whatever group he is pandering to at the time.

Now, let me add some further items to the conversation that I think of when I hear this quote. The British? Yes, they were here. Technically, that was us before the revolution, there chief, though obviously you do not consider yourself to be among the "descendants" of those British subjects that attained their independence in the Revolution, even when, really, regardless of when you got here, if you are a citizen, in a way, you are. Another prime example of the logic this President shows time and time again where he is much more concerned about being a citizen of the world than of this country. By the way, have you apologized to the Queen for the Revolution yet? Clearly, America was just as much at fault there as we were for winning World War II.

Also, if the Mexicans were Mexicans before Mexico even existed, isn't that some racial profiling right there? Anyone who is of Hispanic descent that was born in North America is a "Mexican" right, regardless of when the nation of Mexico came into existence and regardless of whether or not people were actually living within the borders of a country called Mexico? Is that why you think that every person who was born in Mexico also has a right to U.S. citizenship, regardless of whether or not they respect our laws and want to be a part of this nation, not just a foreign national living and working in America, but whose loyalty ultimately remains to their home country?

And lastly, "We all shared the same land." Yes, that is your vision, isn't it? Where we all share everything and nobody owns anything and everybody owns everything. So, in your fantasy land, did the British and the Indians share the land? Did America and the Indians share the land? Are we still sharing it with them today? What about the wars that we fought with Spain and Mexico? Were we sharing the land with them during the wars? Would you have not fought those wars and simply explained how we should share the land and not fight over it?

Yes, my brown little minions, go forth and tell the people in the barrio that the Democrats will share their land and its opportunities with you, regardless of whether or not you came her legally, for you see, it is all our land together, a shared land with free healthcare, education and a whole bunch of things that were once considered opportunities you worked for, yet today are somehow magically entitled civil rights. Citizen and non-citizen, taxpayer and non-taxpayer, all living together in harmony, everyone with an equal share, regardless of what laws you break, regardless of how much more you take out of America than put back in...

Much Bigger Than A Single Report...

At the request of the Master and Commander, the Secretary of State has filed a report with the United Nations, stating that his administration is meeting the mandates of the UN's Human Rights Council through efforts that include filing a lawsuit to stop the state of Arizona from enforcing a law that was passed by its elected officials.

Like a number of my fellow Americans, I find it very disturbing that the Obama Administration is reporting one of our state governments to those jokers at the UN as a violator of human rights because of its enforcement of the nation's immigration laws within its borders. This is further proof that the Master and Commander is more concerned with what the world thinks, than what America's citizens think.

In explaining what is wrong with this filing by the Obama Administration, we must start by looking at what is wrong with the United Nations. While this organization does a lot of good in the world through the funding and resources of the world's industrialized nations, it also turns a blind eye to a hell of a lot of really bad things that go on in the world.

This misguided organization will put some of the world's worst human rights violators on its Human Rights Council in the interest of playing fair and making sure that everyone has a turn. The UN deploys peace-keeping forces that have orders to stand by and watch while horrible atrocities occur. The organization also gives an equal voice to some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, then turns around and views itself as righteous.

"Everyone gets to ride the merry-go-round at school today because it is only fair!" the UN exclaims. Rational Americans reply with disgust, "Even if little Johnny Iran is killing government protesters in the streets, he still gets a turn?!" The UN's answer..."Yes, of course."

Next, we must look at the United States, our long-standing engagement policy with the UN, and how the Obama Administration is changing that policy for the worse. The U.S. has a very strong track record of participation in the UN when it comes to putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way to do good out there in the world, even at times, trying to steer this misguided organization to do the right thing.

We have also, however, had a very strong track record of not participating in a number of the organization's ridiculous propaganda programs, and most importantly, worked hard to ensure that the U.S. does not end up in a submissive position with the UN, something that has long been viewed as detrimental to our security.

To summarize, the United States has had a long-standing policy of involvement in the UN programs that actually make a difference in the world, yet at the same time, has shunned involvement in the organization's misguided propaganda programs that put giving all nations an equal voice above the importance of human rights and security.

All of that, my friends, like so many other things in our lives, is changing under the rule of the Master and Commander. Say what you want to about the Bush Administration, but one thing you cannot say is that at any point did that group of people put what the world thought of us before the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States of America.

You have to reserve that comment for the current administration. It started with a whirlwind tour of the world in the early days of his presidency with the Master and Commander going nation to nation, bowing in submission before world leaders, shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and apologizing for such things as winning World War II and fighting the War on Terror. Today, it continues with this President bowing to the will of the world, making his own country and its people a secondary priority to world opinion by participating in the latest UN propaganda program.

This participation in UN propaganda is most recently apparent with the filing of a Universal Periodic Review report by the Obama Administration. Implemented in 2006 by the UN, this report that would have been viewed as a "suggestion" by the Bush administration was obviously viewed as a "requirement" by the one-worlders in Washington.

The UN "requires" every member nation to submit a report every four years on what they have done to "improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations." In addition to filing this report, which breaks from our long-standing policy of not buying into the UN's propaganda programs, the Master and Commander has reported that one of the things his administration has done to comply with the mandates of the UN Human Rights Council is file a lawsuit against the U.S. State of Arizona, seeking to stop the state from enforcing the recently-passed SB 1070 bill, allowing law enforcement officials to question the citizenship and immigration status of people within the state who are suspect of breaking the law.

The UN's Universal Periodic Review and its report are a prime example of a propaganda program. Each nation provides its own report and when looking at the UN's track record of human rights enforcement, it can clearly be seen that this program is nothing more than yet another propaganda piece in the UN's arsenal to win positive public opinion for itself around the world. What do you think China's communist party leaders are putting in their report? What do you think Iran is putting in its report? And even if Iran did own up and report "we're working on not killing people who protest the government anymore", do you think the UN is actually going to do something about it? Their track record definitely points to no.

Throughout the history of the UN, the U.S. has been a strong part of the organization when lives were on the line, but did not buy into their propaganda programs for a very good reason...the strength and security of our nation. The Master and Commander, obviously doesn't agree.

Not only is the current U.S. administration readily buying into the UN's Universal Periodic Review propaganda program, it is apparent that the administration is also willing to sacrifice the will, security, and welfare of its citizens in order to win positive world opinion from a world stage that includes the supporters of our enemies, including the United Nations.

Can We Talk About Spending Cuts, Please?...

We are going to be hearing some fierce debate in the coming weeks, and perhaps months, about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. While I do see this as something that we should be debating, the fact remains that the expiration of these tax cuts, as they will be allowed to expire by The Master and Commander, will only affect the top three percent of households in the country. The problem with the equation, however, is that these are the three percent of households that run the small businesses that create the jobs that we need so badly right now. I am hearing from the Master and Commander's Money Manager that they are now, after record-setting spending and borrowing, concerned about the growing national debt, and believe that allowing these tax cuts on people making more than $250,000 a year to expire will help bring down the deficit. Perhaps it will, but I also believe that the expiration of these tax cuts may have an effect on job creation by enterpreneurs. There will be a change in their bottom line and that change could result in them becoming wary of creating new jobs. Unlike the federal government, most people spend less when their income is reduced.

While all of this debate about the tax cuts is needed, I would very much like to see our government leaders, especially those on a particular side of the aisle, talking more about spending cuts. Spending cuts? In the middle of the worst economic crisis in history, with less and less money coming in, you want us to spend less? Now, that's just crazy talk, stupid constituent! There are so, so many ways in which our local, state, and federal governments can cut down on their spending, much in the same way that they have all seen the rest of America do during this crisis. We are not holding the federal government and this administration to the spending cuts that we should be seeing.

For a great example of government waste, I recently read a story about an Orange Country resident who was issued and received by mail a bill from the U.S. IRS for 1-cent. Now, of course, this is a drop in the well, nothing compared to other spending, etc. etc., but it is a good concrete example of somewhere we could start - proof positive that there are places that we could cut wasteful spending - most likely proof positive that if we are seeing waste like this, there is also waste elsewhere that we could cut.

So, as we all get caught up in this debate on the tax cuts, let's watch for the slight of hand and these politicians try to take our eyes away from where we should be looking - forcing them to spend less and save more, just like the rest of us are doing.

$20,000 In "Stimulus" Money For Two Road Signs That Were Up For About A Month...

Make no mistake about it...I love living in Aliso Viejo, and I am planning to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. One of the great things about living where I do is our large number of parks and open areas. Every single street is beautifully landscaped and literally every part of the city is well maintained. We have a great fireworks show every Fourth of July and a lot of community activities, including a brand new aquatic center. Now, we all know that this doesn't come cheap. I currently pay $339.52 a year to the city association to help fund our pleasing-to-the-eye lifestyle.

Another great thing about Aliso Viejo is that thanks to this city association fund, our streets are re-paved much more often than they are in other cities. As soon as you are within the city, you immediately notice how well the streets are maintained. So, earlier this year when signs went up and preparations began for the re-paving of all of the streets around our community, I didn't really give it a second thought. They were just re-paving the streets again. That was, however, until they put up the big green signs at either end of the roadwork stating the re-paving of these roads could be credited back to "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act".

Now don't get me wrong, at some point down the road if using "stimulus" money right now results in a reduction in my city association dues, I will be pleased as punch, but I find it hard to believe that I am going to see that. I am sure the money saved will just be put into another areas of the community.

Either way, these large green signs got me thinking about all of the areas in other parts of Orange County that could have probably used that stimulus money much more than Aliso Viejo. I began to wonder why with the horrific state of some of the schools in Orange County was this federal stimulus money going to pave the roads in a community where the residents paid an association fee to pave the roads? Didn't this just seem like more government waste?

By the time I was done thinking about it, I was, as usual, pretty steamed. It seemed ridiculous to spend this money on our roads in Aliso Viejo instead of on schools, children's programs, or GOD FORBID! reducing taxes for the middle class!

While I am admittedly sorry that I did not do so, but I had planned on having Teresa take a picture of me standing next to one of those big green signs with the little Soviet flag that is part of my cold war display at the house, but we never got around to it. The roadwork finished up months ago and while I sometimes think on those big green signs once in a while, I have moved on to other things.

That was until today when I ran across this article about my now-gone big green signs. An article that explains, quite simply, that the reason that my roads were being paved instead of money going to schools or reducing tax burdens was to employ the people who were working on the road outside my house.

The true purpose of the project was to ensure those road workers had money in their pockets. Money that they would take outside of our community, back home to theirs, and spend. Exactly how the stimulus money is supposed to work, right? I get it - I'm onboard - I'm part of the team! Well, as much as I can be.

I then, however, began to reflect on what I know about any government-funded projects...the $500 paper clip. Anyone who tells you that a large percentage of the funding for any project doesn't simply get wasted and blown on inflated hourly rates, inflated material costs, and the bureaucracy that makes it all possible, is just flat out lying.

The proof of this is in the fact that my two big green signs supposedly cost $10,000 a piece to make, put up, and take down. Multiple that $10,000 by all of the big green signs that are going up wherever "stimulus" money is being spent across this fine nation, and we, the taxpayer, are spending millions of dollars on those big, temporary green signs.

I think some of the Facebook comments I saw put it best: "Waste our money to let us know you're wasting our money."...and..."Way to go, big government...and thank you, people who support big government. You are doing one hell of a job!"


Signs of the Stimulus
Some Call it Transparency, Others Another Example of Government Waste
By JONATHAN KARL and GREGORY SIMMONS

As the midterm election season approaches, new road signs are popping up everywhere – millions of dollars worth of signs touting "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and reminding passers-by that the program is "Putting America Back to Work."

On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.

However, there's another number that caught the eye of ABC News: $10,000. That's how much money the Washington Airports Authority tells ABC News it spent to make and install the sign – a single sign – announcing that the project is "Funded by The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and is "Putting America Back to Work." The money for the sign was taken out of the budget for the runway improvement project.

ABC News has reached out to a number of states about spending on stimulus signs and learned the state of Illinois has spent $650,000 on about 950 signs and Pennsylvania has spent $157,000 on 70 signs. Other states, like Virginia, Vermont, and Arizona do not sanction any signs.

One state brags it posts signs but manages to keep the process cost-effective. The Tennessee Department of Transportation boasts, "There are a total of 324 signs statewide for a total cost of $12,931 and an average of $37.67 each." The reason for the small cost, they say, is that their signs are small-- about equal to a speed limit sign.

In response to questions by ABC News, Jill Zuckman of the Department of Transportation said, "The best estimate is that states have spent about $5 million of the $28 billion spent on road projects on signs – or less than .02 percent of overall project spending."

Still, some Republicans are crying foul. Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Earl Devaney, Chairman of the Recovery Act and Transparency and Accountability Board, requesting an investigation to "determine the scope and impact of the Obama administration's guidance" regarding signs to stimulus recipients.

Rep. Issa writes that the passage of the Stimulus Bill, "has provided an opportunity for the Obama administration to claim political credit for the various projects around the country that have been funded by this redistribution of taxpayer dollars."

At the center of the controversy are a series of guidelines provided to stimulus recipients. In the letter, Rep. Issa cites what he calls "perhaps the most overly political guidance on stimulus advertising" involving the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a stimulus recipient. According to investigators from the oversight committee, HUD provided the Office of Native American Programs with information on "signage requirements." The document suggested a sign template informing the public the projects had been, "Funded By: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Barack Obama, President."

Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) has joined the chorus of Republican outrage over stimulus signs and claims at least $20 million has been spent on them. He told ABC News, "I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, borrowed money, on a bunch of signs to tell them how we are spending their taxpayer money."

Schock's office provided ABC News with administration guidance on stimulus signs sent to him from a constituent. The document, dated March of 2009, outlines the "General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo Applications." The Recovery Act logo which was provided not only looks oddly similar to the Obama logo from the 2008 campaign but its stated purpose, according to the document, is to act as "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American people to invest their tax dollars wisely and put Americans back to work."

Rep. Schock argues that the signs are not a wise investment at all, but rather, a waste of money. He took to the House floor today to offer a bill, "to prevent funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 from being used for physical signage indicating that a project is funded by such Act, and for other purposes."

Massachusetts Democrat James McGovern fired back, "This is the best we can get? Not putting up signs?" He continued, "How about paying for the tax cuts for the rich that my friends on the other side of the aisle passed? Hundreds of billions of dollars in debt that you put on the backs of my kids and my grandkids so that the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country can get a tax break."

When asked about Republican outcry over spending on stimulus signs, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs quipped, " I'm glad the Republicans have noticed the several – nearly 11,000 road projects that are underway this summer."

-Robin Gradison and Avery Miller contributed to this report.