Regarding this budget sequester, the President recently said that these cuts "are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls." Did he forget that these cuts were only made possible by his signature in August 2011? Did he forget that he got an immediate $900 billion debt limit increase and an option for another $1.2-1.5 trillion?
In typical statist fashion, the President is trying to panic people into thinking that only government can solve their problems and any reductions will have disastrous consequences. Here are a few examples.
1. "Veterans will go hungry." These men and women bravely served their nation some in war zones. With the exception of the severely disabled, are they not now capable of at least feeding themselves? Is this not a demeaning way of looking at people?
2. "Meat will spoil." The FDA only inspects meat; they don't store it at the proper temperatures. That's the job of meat-packing plants, grocery stores and customers. Each one realizes that if they fail to do so, their product will spoil which results in no meat sales or no meat to eat.
3. "Poor people will be kicked out of their homes." Poor people shouldn't own homes anyway; they should be renting until they have worked their way up the income scale and can afford homes. Perhaps homes would be more affordable without federal government's myriad of intrusions such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, TARP and Dodd-Frank.
4. "Schools won't have teachers." The federal government does not fund teacher salaries; local taxpayers do through sales and property taxes.
5. "The mentally ill won't be treated." Apparently, from the latest rash of mass murders this nation has experienced, they aren't being treated properly now. Again, states address the mentally ill within their borders.
6. "Our military readiness will be jeopardized." Since when did this President care about our military? He has already proposed massive cuts to defense outside of sequester. Plus, the sequester cuts are lopsided toward defense; half of the cuts are to defense which only constitutes 20% of the budget. Furthermore, we have slowly learned that we weren't ready for the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Well, our military was ready, but our leaders were paralyzed by politics or worse did not care.
The President breathed a sigh of relief when the House GOP compromised and struck this "grand bargain" mainly because he got authority to borrow more money. Now that he is looking at the other side of the coin, spending cuts, which are really only reductions in spending, he is scared to death that this government will not grow quite as much as usual. Perhaps the sky will not fall.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Rights or right?
A federal judge in Florida recently issued a temporary injunction on a Florida law requiring welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits. Judge Mary Scriven ruled that people's fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure would be violated if this law went into effect.
Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he's "happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can't act without a reason or suspicion."
I am glad to see this applicant aware of and defending his Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but where in the Constitution do we find his right to someone else's property without just compensation? In the real world, you can only lay claim to someone else's property in exchange for negotiated labor or other property.
If someone broke into your house and, with loaded gun in hand, demanded your property to make a living, they would be arrested, tried and convicted of burglary and theft. Is it any more right to acquire someone's property using the power of the state? While the state government may have that option under our current Constitution, the federal government does not, but it uses its power to force states into one-size-fits-all policies left solely to the states by the same Constitution.
Assume for a moment that public welfare is right since this system has been in place for so long. Do we expect the state to simply redistribute this property without any strings attached? If state governmentss choose to implement such policies, they should be allowed to apply as many or as few restrictions as they see fit and their budgets allow.
Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he's "happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can't act without a reason or suspicion."
I am glad to see this applicant aware of and defending his Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but where in the Constitution do we find his right to someone else's property without just compensation? In the real world, you can only lay claim to someone else's property in exchange for negotiated labor or other property.
If someone broke into your house and, with loaded gun in hand, demanded your property to make a living, they would be arrested, tried and convicted of burglary and theft. Is it any more right to acquire someone's property using the power of the state? While the state government may have that option under our current Constitution, the federal government does not, but it uses its power to force states into one-size-fits-all policies left solely to the states by the same Constitution.
Assume for a moment that public welfare is right since this system has been in place for so long. Do we expect the state to simply redistribute this property without any strings attached? If state governmentss choose to implement such policies, they should be allowed to apply as many or as few restrictions as they see fit and their budgets allow.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Opt-outs
President Obama is yet again by-passing the rule of law and violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution by offering states the opportunity to exempt themselves from certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind law signed by President Bush. He cites the numerous states failing to live up to the provisions of NCLB and a divided Congress unable to reform the law among the reasons to justifiably grant waivers to those states willing to embrace his reforms presumably found in his Race to the Top program.
A course of action respecting the entire Constitution is to repeal NCLB and allow the states to implement their own educational reforms. A course of action respecting at least Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution is to ask Congress to repeal NCLB and propose to Congress for their consideration a new law to replace NCLB. If NCLB is so burdensome, it should be easy to repeal. However, his course of action violates the rule of law and the concept of equal protection under the law.
Suppose in a few years the quality of health care and the timing of health care delivery was much worse and the cost of health care and health insurance were much higher than today. States are already cutting their budgets, a significant portion of which is Medicaid, and Obamacare essentially shifts more people into Medicaid. What would stop the next President from granting waivers not only to well-connected, politically-favorable businesses and unions, such as President Obama has done for more than 1000, but also to the states as GOP Presidential-candidate Romney has proposed in a number of debates? It would be no less of a violation of the rule of law and the equal protection clause.
Who believes that a state politically unfriendly to President Obama, such as Texas, or a state politically unfriendly to a President Perry, such as Illinois, requesting a waiver from any burdensome law or regulation would receive one? Burdensome, unconstitutional laws lead to the idea and legitimacy of waivers which lead to rewarding or punishing political friends or enemies, respectively.
I oppose unconstitutional laws such as NCLB and Obamacare as well as any waivers pertaining to them. The federal government was established by the states and the people and is their servant. It is a shame that those same states and people must now beg for mercy from that same servant which has now become their master.
A course of action respecting the entire Constitution is to repeal NCLB and allow the states to implement their own educational reforms. A course of action respecting at least Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution is to ask Congress to repeal NCLB and propose to Congress for their consideration a new law to replace NCLB. If NCLB is so burdensome, it should be easy to repeal. However, his course of action violates the rule of law and the concept of equal protection under the law.
Suppose in a few years the quality of health care and the timing of health care delivery was much worse and the cost of health care and health insurance were much higher than today. States are already cutting their budgets, a significant portion of which is Medicaid, and Obamacare essentially shifts more people into Medicaid. What would stop the next President from granting waivers not only to well-connected, politically-favorable businesses and unions, such as President Obama has done for more than 1000, but also to the states as GOP Presidential-candidate Romney has proposed in a number of debates? It would be no less of a violation of the rule of law and the equal protection clause.
Who believes that a state politically unfriendly to President Obama, such as Texas, or a state politically unfriendly to a President Perry, such as Illinois, requesting a waiver from any burdensome law or regulation would receive one? Burdensome, unconstitutional laws lead to the idea and legitimacy of waivers which lead to rewarding or punishing political friends or enemies, respectively.
I oppose unconstitutional laws such as NCLB and Obamacare as well as any waivers pertaining to them. The federal government was established by the states and the people and is their servant. It is a shame that those same states and people must now beg for mercy from that same servant which has now become their master.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Bright idea
Whereas the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution leaves to the states and people issues not found within the U.S. Constitution such as light bulbs, CO2 emissions and global warming, and...
Whereas the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating commerce within their own borders, and...
Whereas the light from fluorescent light bulbs causes eye strain, headaches and frustration for adolescents and self-conscious women, and...
Whereas fluorescent light bulbs, while using less energy, cost more to produce and dispose of, then...
Be it resolved that Texas House Bill 2510, which would allow the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs within the state of Texas and exempt them from efficiency standards as mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act signed by President Bush, should be signed by Governor Rick Perry.
Whereas the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating commerce within their own borders, and...
Whereas the "supreme law of the land" clause of the U.S. Constitution only applies to laws made in pursuance thereof, and...
Whereas the incandescent light bulb has served the world well since its invention by Edison in 1879 as a safe, cheap and reliable source of light and heat, and...
Whereas the fluorescent light bulb contains mercury which is harmful to human health and would be released if broken, and...
Whereas the fluorescent light bulb when used in traffic lights will ice over in snow and ice storms, and...Whereas the light from fluorescent light bulbs causes eye strain, headaches and frustration for adolescents and self-conscious women, and...
Whereas fluorescent light bulbs, while using less energy, cost more to produce and dispose of, then...
Be it resolved that Texas House Bill 2510, which would allow the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs within the state of Texas and exempt them from efficiency standards as mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act signed by President Bush, should be signed by Governor Rick Perry.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Real Social Security
Have you ever wondered how much money is sitting in your Social Security retirement account within the SS trust fund in West Virginia? You get monthly, quarterly or annual balance statements from your other private retirement accounts as required by law although sometimes I would rather not see them. When was the last time you got a statement from the SSA other than the one showing how much your monthly benefit will be when you retire?
Citing a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters, The Hill online newspaper posted today the following:
"Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one's Social Security taxes."
While 36% oppose any privatization of SS, 53% favor partial to full privatization. Privatization appears to have the green light. Even if the undecided 11% eventually oppose it, there is still a slim majority in favor of it. While women more than men, old more than young, black more than white and Dem more than GOP oppose privatization, the overall group favors it and each sub-group admits the program is in dire straits. More people favor restructuring our broken retirement system than our broken healthcare system which recently realized a major overhaul.
I would actually like to thank the President for floating the idea and signing into law the partial privatization of the program. He essentially did as much by reducing the historical 6.2% payroll tax to 4.2%. I will set aside that extra 2% in my personal retirement account, and I highly recommend everyone do so for two reasons. First, this tax cut is slated to expire at the end of the year, so if you are spending it, you will have to readjust your lifestyle. Second, depending on your age, it may be the only portion of that "tax" you ever get to spend in your retirement because all trust fund "profits", when there were any, were spent in the general budget in exchange for I.O.U.'s, and, as the same article noted, that same trust fund was in the red last year for the first time. By the way, those I.O.U.'s, or unfunded liabilities, amount to $17.5 trillion as of 2009 according to its trustees.
Yes. Private accounts do run the risk of losing money; many people were reminded of that 2-3 years ago in the crash of 2008. If you were less than 5 years from retirement, that was financially devastating. However, all ideas put forth so far plan to privatize accounts, even partially, only for those 55 or younger.
Private account balances may rise and fall, but at least that money really exists and will belong to you, not to your children and grandchildren who have yet to earn it.
Citing a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters, The Hill online newspaper posted today the following:
"Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one's Social Security taxes."
While 36% oppose any privatization of SS, 53% favor partial to full privatization. Privatization appears to have the green light. Even if the undecided 11% eventually oppose it, there is still a slim majority in favor of it. While women more than men, old more than young, black more than white and Dem more than GOP oppose privatization, the overall group favors it and each sub-group admits the program is in dire straits. More people favor restructuring our broken retirement system than our broken healthcare system which recently realized a major overhaul.
I would actually like to thank the President for floating the idea and signing into law the partial privatization of the program. He essentially did as much by reducing the historical 6.2% payroll tax to 4.2%. I will set aside that extra 2% in my personal retirement account, and I highly recommend everyone do so for two reasons. First, this tax cut is slated to expire at the end of the year, so if you are spending it, you will have to readjust your lifestyle. Second, depending on your age, it may be the only portion of that "tax" you ever get to spend in your retirement because all trust fund "profits", when there were any, were spent in the general budget in exchange for I.O.U.'s, and, as the same article noted, that same trust fund was in the red last year for the first time. By the way, those I.O.U.'s, or unfunded liabilities, amount to $17.5 trillion as of 2009 according to its trustees.
Yes. Private accounts do run the risk of losing money; many people were reminded of that 2-3 years ago in the crash of 2008. If you were less than 5 years from retirement, that was financially devastating. However, all ideas put forth so far plan to privatize accounts, even partially, only for those 55 or younger.
Private account balances may rise and fall, but at least that money really exists and will belong to you, not to your children and grandchildren who have yet to earn it.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Oldy but goody
Which of the following legally-binding statements is easier to understand?
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
or
"Conditions Based on Health Status Factor.-If any of the conditions for obtaining a premium discount or rebate or other reward for participation in a wellness program is based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor, such wellness program shall not violate this section if the requirements of paragraph (3) are complied with."
The first statement is from the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. It was transmitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified effective December 15, 1791, nearly 2 years and 3 months later. The people and their elected representatives had plenty of time to understand this new law.
The second statement is from Part 1, Subpart 1, Section 2705(j)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or H.R. 3590. It was introduced in the House on September 17, 2009, passed in the House on October 8, 2009, passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010, slightly over 6 months later. The people and their elected representatives had little time to understand this new law.
While the latter statement is not impossible to understand, new terms are introduced such as wellness program and health status factor. Where are these terms defined? Does the definition change with the times or at the secretary's discretion? What are the requirements of paragraph (3)? Given enough time and some legal aid, I could understand what the latter means to me, my neighbor, the insurance industry and/or my state, but I immediately understand the plain language of the former.
According to Washington Post's Ezra Klein, however, "nobody understands what it (Constitution) means because it's over 100 years old". What does age have to do with it? Is he not implying that because of its age it no longer has any applicability to modern society? I contend that no matter when it was written the Constitution, along with its amendments, the most recent of which was ratified on May 7, 1992, is still a modern document because we the people can change it whenever we so desire. We even added one banning booze in 1919 then repealed it nearly 15 years later. It is not up to the courts to modernize it at their whim; it is up to us. If we take no action to change it, then we believe it still applies to modern society.
Yes. The oldest part of the Constitution was written over 223 years ago, but it's not the age of the law that matters; it's how many lawyers you need to understand it. The 200+ companies getting waivers from certain sections of H.R 3590 are the ones big enough to have lawyers dedicated to understanding those sections affecting them. Small businesses, and individuals, without a legion of lawyers will find out the hard way. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was written in such a way that the common person can understand it all by him or herself.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
or
"Conditions Based on Health Status Factor.-If any of the conditions for obtaining a premium discount or rebate or other reward for participation in a wellness program is based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor, such wellness program shall not violate this section if the requirements of paragraph (3) are complied with."
The first statement is from the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. It was transmitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified effective December 15, 1791, nearly 2 years and 3 months later. The people and their elected representatives had plenty of time to understand this new law.
The second statement is from Part 1, Subpart 1, Section 2705(j)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or H.R. 3590. It was introduced in the House on September 17, 2009, passed in the House on October 8, 2009, passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010, slightly over 6 months later. The people and their elected representatives had little time to understand this new law.
While the latter statement is not impossible to understand, new terms are introduced such as wellness program and health status factor. Where are these terms defined? Does the definition change with the times or at the secretary's discretion? What are the requirements of paragraph (3)? Given enough time and some legal aid, I could understand what the latter means to me, my neighbor, the insurance industry and/or my state, but I immediately understand the plain language of the former.
According to Washington Post's Ezra Klein, however, "nobody understands what it (Constitution) means because it's over 100 years old". What does age have to do with it? Is he not implying that because of its age it no longer has any applicability to modern society? I contend that no matter when it was written the Constitution, along with its amendments, the most recent of which was ratified on May 7, 1992, is still a modern document because we the people can change it whenever we so desire. We even added one banning booze in 1919 then repealed it nearly 15 years later. It is not up to the courts to modernize it at their whim; it is up to us. If we take no action to change it, then we believe it still applies to modern society.
Yes. The oldest part of the Constitution was written over 223 years ago, but it's not the age of the law that matters; it's how many lawyers you need to understand it. The 200+ companies getting waivers from certain sections of H.R 3590 are the ones big enough to have lawyers dedicated to understanding those sections affecting them. Small businesses, and individuals, without a legion of lawyers will find out the hard way. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was written in such a way that the common person can understand it all by him or herself.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Anti-bullying Wave
On Thursday November 18th, the Dallas Independent School District expanded their anti-bullying policy to include gays, lesbians and transgenders. That policy already applied to the characteristics of national origin, family background, religious and political beliefs. Although there was no particular incident at DISD that led to this policy amendment, the school board felt compelled to do something in the wake of recent bullying incidents in other parts of the country that even led to suicide. They were smart enough to change the policy before something happened. Punishment ranges from counseling to expulsion.
1. The intent of this anti-bullying policy is to protect students from other students. Fair enough, but what about protecting students from teachers or other staff? The latest case in point is an incident at Howell Public School District in Howell, Michigan on October 20 which features an economics teacher, Jay McDowell, and one of his students, Daniel Glowacki, discussing various issues completely unrelated to economics. It started when another student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle was told by McDowell to remove it, but Glowacki defended it on free-speech grounds. McDowell then called Glowacki a racist. McDowell, who wore a shirt highlighting one of these recent gay-student suicides, also asked Glowacki for his opinion on gays. After responding that he opposes that lifestyle on religious beliefs, he was ejected from class.
After reviewing statements from all parties, the district suspended McDowell for one day without pay and determined Glowacki had not engaged in any bullying or hate speech. First, I tend to believe the students' story since the district is standing by their decision despite intense pressure from the teacher's union of which McDowell is president. Second, I am quite surprised that the district has not "buckled". The big question is...would they would have stood by the student if their anti-bullying policy had been as explicitly worded as DISDs? Verbal harassment based on sexual orientation is found in the Howell policy, but apparently this did not rise to the level of bullying. What happens when bullying is both someone speaking against the gay lifestyle on religious beliefs and someone who is gay or supports the gay lifestyle criticizing those same religious beliefs? Who is the greater victim?
While the gay lifestyle seems to be more palatable to society, issues of religion and faith are not a buffet. We do not follow a God of our own making; He did not give us the Ten Suggestions. Does the clay have any right to question the Potter?
2. Apparently bullying has morphed from just hitting, or physical abuse, to hitting and intimidation, or emotional abuse. I did on a few occasions endure some physical abuse in my K-12 years. Nobody then could question that those incidents were bullying. I assumed this was just part of life; some people have to physically dominate you to elevate their egos. I did not lodge complaints with the administration but "rolled with the punches" so to speak. If intimidation now also qualifies as bullying, then I spent the better part of K-12 being bullied. While I make no apologies for it, I don't feel any worse off for it 17-30 years later. Perhaps I could wear the victim mantle and use it as an excuse for my many failures in life, but will my boss, wife or kids give me a pass because of it? Is it at least a lesson to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and teach my children the same?
1. The intent of this anti-bullying policy is to protect students from other students. Fair enough, but what about protecting students from teachers or other staff? The latest case in point is an incident at Howell Public School District in Howell, Michigan on October 20 which features an economics teacher, Jay McDowell, and one of his students, Daniel Glowacki, discussing various issues completely unrelated to economics. It started when another student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle was told by McDowell to remove it, but Glowacki defended it on free-speech grounds. McDowell then called Glowacki a racist. McDowell, who wore a shirt highlighting one of these recent gay-student suicides, also asked Glowacki for his opinion on gays. After responding that he opposes that lifestyle on religious beliefs, he was ejected from class.
After reviewing statements from all parties, the district suspended McDowell for one day without pay and determined Glowacki had not engaged in any bullying or hate speech. First, I tend to believe the students' story since the district is standing by their decision despite intense pressure from the teacher's union of which McDowell is president. Second, I am quite surprised that the district has not "buckled". The big question is...would they would have stood by the student if their anti-bullying policy had been as explicitly worded as DISDs? Verbal harassment based on sexual orientation is found in the Howell policy, but apparently this did not rise to the level of bullying. What happens when bullying is both someone speaking against the gay lifestyle on religious beliefs and someone who is gay or supports the gay lifestyle criticizing those same religious beliefs? Who is the greater victim?
While the gay lifestyle seems to be more palatable to society, issues of religion and faith are not a buffet. We do not follow a God of our own making; He did not give us the Ten Suggestions. Does the clay have any right to question the Potter?
2. Apparently bullying has morphed from just hitting, or physical abuse, to hitting and intimidation, or emotional abuse. I did on a few occasions endure some physical abuse in my K-12 years. Nobody then could question that those incidents were bullying. I assumed this was just part of life; some people have to physically dominate you to elevate their egos. I did not lodge complaints with the administration but "rolled with the punches" so to speak. If intimidation now also qualifies as bullying, then I spent the better part of K-12 being bullied. While I make no apologies for it, I don't feel any worse off for it 17-30 years later. Perhaps I could wear the victim mantle and use it as an excuse for my many failures in life, but will my boss, wife or kids give me a pass because of it? Is it at least a lesson to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and teach my children the same?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)