Obama's New Jobs Program

So now we know what Mr. Obama's new jobs program is. Put guitar makers out of business. Specifically Gibson guitars, but if you make guitars, and didn't contribute to the Obama campaign, you may be next. In fact, if you run any business and did not contribute to Obama, you may be next.

According to the Department of Agriculture, food stamps are a jobs program. The Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, actually said the other day, as if he believed it, that every dollar spent in food stamps generates a dollar and eighty-four cents in economic activity. We should be ecstatic then, that the Department of Fish and Wildlife, under the direction of the Department of Justice, swooped in to Gibson Guitar's three plants yesterday, and confiscated all of their ebony and rosewood, idling 1,000 workers. Just think about all that economic activity that will be created when those 1,000 workers get on the food stamp program!

At issue, apparently is the Lacy Act. The Lacy Act says that certain imported items cannot be imported in violation of the exporting country's law. The ebony and rosewood in question are products of India, and even though Gibson has documentation from the Indian government stating the the wood was legally imported by Gibson, and its export from India does not violate Indian law, the Department of Justice apparently knows better than the Indian government what Indian law is, and Gibson is violating it. We should all be happy then, that we have 1,000 potential new food stamp recipients to generate $1.84 in economic activity for each $1.00 in food stamp money they spend.

Following this logic, it is clear that the Obama Administration's new jobs program is to create as many unemployed food stamp recipients as possible so as to create all that economic activity! That would explain the silence about GE sending thousands of high paying avionics jobs to China last week. Just think about all those people who will not be getting those jobs here, so they can continue to receive food stamps and create economic activity. Rejoice in the fact that the Department of Labor will not allow Boeing to expand its plant in South Carolina. That is many more people who are now creating economic activity by remaining on the food stamp program instead of having good, high paying jobs. How fortunate they are in South Carolina that we have such a forward thinking administration! Following this logic to its ultimate conclusion, it is obvious that we should, for the good of the country, all quit our jobs and go on food stamps! What economic activity we would create! Why there would be jobs for everyone. But wait, if there would be jobs for everyone if we were all on food stamps, who would take them? And wouldn't it be counter productive to go to work, when food stamps are what creates the economic activity? Oh never mind that, who cares where the money comes from to provide the food stamps. The government will just print it I guess. Free cheese for everyone!

But who would make the cheese? I guess the government would print that too. Well Mr. Obama said we don't need to worry about that, we are too busy and needn't try to understand such complicated problems. We should just concentrate on raising our families, and doing what we do every day, and let our benefactors in the government worry about such things. Whew, that's a load off my mind.

Of course what the Department of Agriculture is missing, is that in order to give the newly unemployed Guitar worker one dollar in food stamps, it must first be taken out of the hands of an employed taxpayer by the Government. That, of course, means the dollar and eighty four cents in economic activity created in the spending of a food stamp dollar is really only eighty-four cents. If one follows the math on this, one sees that the dollar in food stamps actually costs the economy sixteen cents in activity. To be fair, no one ever accused this administration of having a firm grasp on the principals of mathematics.

Stand Up for America!

When I was a boy, there was a plaque on the wall of my school homeroom that said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There was also a big wooden paddle with holes drilled in it.

I am only fifty years old, so I am talking about the seventies here, not exactly ancient history. Forty years ago we were taught about civics, the US Constitution, and responsibility. Yes, I am talking about public school.

We were also taught math, science, and English. We were taught geography. I actually know in which part of the world Taiwan is located, and I can tell you what the three co-equal branches of government are and what their function is supposed to be. From the current wrangling, I don't think every member of congress could do as much.

As we watch Great Brittan burn, and read about the rise of criminal flash mobs in our cities here at home, I cannot help but wonder if forty years on increasing liberalism in our educational system have not brought us to the brink of this great nation's demise.

Our President and leaders in Congress apparently cannot even accomplish simple mathematics, such as 2.2 trillion minus 3.6 trillion leaves one with a negative number. I realize those numbers have a lot of zeros, but the principal is the same as two minus three.

While the President is busy criticizing Standard and Poor's for lowering our credit rating, something they warned they were going to do a year ago, and then again in April, and something they should have done long ago, the rest of the world is coming apart for the same mathematical failings.

From Ancient Greece, to Rome, to the Pilgrims, to the Soviet Union, society after society have tried various forms of socialism/communism only to fall under the crushing weight of abdicating the citizens responsibilities to care for themselves in favor of cradle to grave nanny state-ism.

When I was in school, I was intrigued with our founders belief in individual people's ability to govern themselves and to be responsible for their own fortunes, or lack thereof. Men like Washington, Jefferson, Paine, Henry, Madison, Monroe, and yes even Hamilton risked their lives and spent years devising a system of government which would insure that government would never get so powerful as to become tyrannical. They sought to limit the power of their government, to ensure that the states would be sovereign, and the role of the Federal Government would be only to provide for the common needs of the several states, under those state's direction. They knew and so stated that such a system of government would only work with an informed and responsible electorate, who were guided by spiritual principals. The most notable of which is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

These ideals are completely lacking in the curriculum of our public schools today. The ideas of discipline and hard work are completely lacking due to decades of assault on the public school system by atheists and socialists who pervade higher education and the national teacher's unions.

The results are self-evident. We have leaders who are not even passively familiar with the meaning of the US Constitution, who cannot understand that debts need to be paid, and street gangs who feel justified in overwhelming stores to take whatever they feel like, and if someone gets seriously hurt in the process they could not care less.

We have a President who scoffs at the Constitution of the United States of America, an Attorney General who thinks voter intimidation is right and necessary, runaway governmental agencies bent on regulating business and private property rights out of existence, and a populace who thinks their federal legislature is completely ineffectual and corrupt.

As the world burns while our President plays golf and raises campaign funds, I cannot help but long for the wisdom of Jefferson, Madison, and Henry to invade our leadership. It is left to us, then, those of us who understand and remember what this country was supposed to be, to stand up. We must write, talk, shout and extol the virtues this country was founded upon.

We must come together in groups of twos, fives, and tens. We must decide if our federal system might be saved or if secession is necessary. It is up to those of us who still believe in individual rights AND responsibilities to come together and say if not now, when, if not me, who, if we don't care enough about the founding principals of our nation, who will.

We are the ones who must pass the message of freedom on to our youth in our homes and our neighborhoods. It is up to us!

Stand by your convictions and join me. United is the only way we will stand, for divided we shall surely fall!

Where Does the Buck Stop?

Last night we heard the President of the United States once again take to the microphone and lecture us about the debt crisis. While I listened very carefully to what he said, I was saddened. It was little different from many speeches he has given recently with no plan, no new information, and very little truth.

There was a time in America when we were proud of the leader of our country. There was a time when, rightly or wrongly, we trusted what he said. There was a time when we could tell our children to be inspired by his words, to look up to him and aspire to the quality of his character.

It is no longer that time. Our country has a serious problem. We are spending our children into indentured servitude, slavery as it were. We are digging for them a hole from which they will find it impossible to extract themselves. Everyone knows this, it is self-evident.

A man with integrity, with strength of character, a man of leadership, would take bold action. He would acknowledge the elephant in the room and recognize that when one finds one's self at the bottom of a deep hole, the wise course is to stop digging.

What did we hear from our President last night? First of all, blame Bush. Nothing new here. Second, scare people. He once again threatened senior citizens by offering to withhold their Social Security checks. The problem is that threat is an outright lie, and designed only to maintain a hold on his power, and to urge us to let him make the hole deeper with a backhoe, rather than a shovel. How am I to teach my daughter the value of honesty when the President of the United States knows very well that he cannot stop the Social Security payments, even if he wanted to. There are 2.6 trillion dollars of treasury notes in the Social Security trust fund. Those treasury notes are already there, and are not affected by the debt ceiling. Mr. Obama knows that they can be negotiated in order to pay our seniors, and that the law requires him to do so.

He threatens default on our debt, when he also knows full well that there is more than enough money coming into the treasury on a monthly basis to service our debt, pay our soldiers, and cover our most pressing obligations.

There is no integrity in this man. He is concerned with his own political future, period. How can I point to the Office of the President of The United States, and tell my daughter how great this country is? How can I talk about the principals which made America the most desirable place in the world to live, when we have such a blatant ego-maniacal liar for our leader?

He has offered no plan. He has obstructed every sensible plan offered. He has stood squarely in front of every effort of business to grow our economy, from denying permits for oil and coal exploration, to blocking manufacturing plant expansion, to taxing tanning salons out of business.

So we should hand him a larger shovel, a mechanized shovel with which to bury us and our posterity? Should we allow this man to heap further debt upon the heads of our children while continuing to limit their opportunities for the future? Should we sell our children into never ending servitude to a government whose leader cannot muster up the intellectual honesty to admit he might be wrong about anything?

I say NO! I say not while I still have the ability to speak for the lovely young woman who is my daughter! This is my country. I earned the money the federal leviathan extracts from my pocket every two weeks. It is NOT your money Mr. President. I do NOT agree to make the payments on the debt you wish to incur on behalf of my daughter and me. Many brave souls gave their lives to extract themselves and their descendants from the yoke of Tyranny and if it becomes necessary, many more will. If the buck will not stop with you Mr. President, then I say the buck stops here, with me and mine!

President & US Senate Support Slavery of our Children!

That may sound like a provocative headline, and it is, but it is also the truth! Our current debt is $14.519 Trillion. That means my 12 year old daughter's share of that is currently $46,564.00. Add in the current unfunded liabilities of $114,751,918,000,000.00 and her share of the national debt plus unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare is $414,583.72 or $1862.00 per month every month for THIRTY years. On top of that the US Senate and President Obama want to add an additional 2.4 Trillion dollars which, under the McConnell plan, have no spending cuts associated with it, and under the Gang (appropriate name for what they are trying to do) of Six plan nobody knows.

Assuming we stopped borrowing right now, and my daughter could get a job right out of high school making $40,000.00 per year, she would already owe her entire take home salary to the government. She did not vote for these debts. She did nothing to create them, yet there she is at twelve years old owing the Slave Owners in Washington nearly a half-million dollars. You owe that much too!

We are all rapidly becoming enduntured servants of the leviathan we call our government. It has long ago ceased to be a governemnt of the people, for the people and by the people. It has become instead a government of the career politician, for the career politician and his friends, and by the lobbyist and government dole recipient. Unfortunately soon there will be no producers left to feed the insatiable appetite of the gluttonous belly of the political beast in Washington DC.

So yes, the President and the US Senate, by refusing to support the cut, cap and balance plan which passed the House of Representatives last night, and offers a real chance to start to get a handle on our spending problem, are de-facto showing themselves to be in favor of enslaving our children and grandchildren now and long into the future.

It is time to stop the practice of making slaves out of ourselves and our children. It is time to stop NOW. We are the governors of this country, not the lazy, cowardly career politicians in DC. Let them know. Let them know that if they do not free your children from the yoke of bondage now, they will be sent home to labor under that very same yoke themselves. It is YOUR country, YOU can make a difference. You have until Saturday, and then it too late.

Stop the Senate from Handing a Blank Check to Obama!

Well, folks, I am sorry to report that the fix is in. The Senate, in back room dealing, appears to be prepared to hand President Obama a blank check to spend our children's as of yet unearned money any way he pleases, to the tune of an additional 2.5 TRILLION dollars.

I listened to John McCain yesterday on the Sean Hannity show, and he all but said as much! Mr. Hannity was asking repeatedly about cut, cap and balance, and McCain said he was going to fight for it, but then consistently argued for the McConnell plan. He barley gave lip service to cut, cap and balance, and got angry when Hannity pressed him about the McConnell plan. McCain said it was a last resort, but then continued over and over again to argue it's merits. Heaven help us!

In making my calls to Senate offices yesterday afternoon, my impression did not change. Republican staffers with whom I spoke, seemed to be hedging when I brought up the McConnell plan and my opposition to it. The Democrats staffers just gave me the “yeah, yeah I'll pass your message on” routine.

McCain told Hannity that his office had been flooded with calls from seniors who were frightened by the Obamascare campaign. The fact that the Administration could not stop social security checks from going out, even if they wanted to, because of the way the Social Security Administration's computers are programed, didn't get in McCain's way. Our only course has to be action!

If these Senators' offices are overwhelmed with calls from concerned citizens like you and me, we might have a slim chance of beginning to free our children from the slavery and tyranny being foisted upon them by our so-called representatives.

Given the fact that ICE is busily shutting down blogs and seizing domain names, I don't know how long we will have the opportunity to speak in opposition to this Administration's ongoing power grab and usurpation of the rights with which we were endowed by our creator!

I urge anyone who is interested in freedom, in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to call as many Senators as possible and voice strong opposition to Senator McConnell's plan to hand over a blank check to the President, so he can spend as many of our children's hard earned dollars as he chooses! Do it today! Do it now! Time is running out for our beloved nation!

Akaka, Daniel K. - (D - HI)

(202) 224-6361

Web Form: akaka.senate.gov/email-senator-akaka.cfm

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)

(202) 224-4944

Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Ayotte, Kelly - (R - NH)

(202) 224-3324

Web Form: ayotte.senate.gov/?p=contact

Barrasso, John - (R - WY)

(202) 224-6441

Web Form: barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs...

Baucus, Max - (D - MT)

(202) 224-2651

Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Begich, Mark - (D - AK)

(202) 224-3004

Web Form: begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailSenator

Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO)

(202) 224-5852

Web Form: bennet.senate.gov/contact/

Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM)

(202) 224-5521

Web Form: bingaman.senate.gov/contact/

Blumenthal, Richard - (D - CT)

(202) 224-2823

Web Form: blumenthal.senate.gov/contact/

Blunt, Roy - (R - MO)

(202) 224-5721

Web Form: blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Boozman, John - (R - AR)

(202) 224-4843

Web Form: boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)

(202) 224-3553

Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/

Brown, Scott P. - (R - MA)

(202) 224-4543

Web Form: scottbrown.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailscottbrown

Brown, Sherrod - (D - OH)

(202) 224-2315

Web Form: brown.senate.gov/contact/

Burr, Richard - (R - NC)

(202) 224-3154

Web Form: burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Conta...

Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)

(202) 224-3441

Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

Cardin, Benjamin L. - (D - MD)

(202) 224-4524

Web Form: cardin.senate.gov/contact/

Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE)

(202) 224-2441

Web Form: carper.senate.gov/contact/

Casey, Robert P., Jr. - (D - PA)

(202) 224-6324

Web Form: casey.senate.gov/contact/

Chambliss, Saxby - (R - GA)

(202) 224-3521

Web Form: chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Coats, Daniel - (R - IN)

(202) 224-5623

Web Form: coats.senate.gov/contact/

Coburn, Tom - (R - OK)

(202) 224-5754

Web Form: coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactsenatorcoburn?p...

Cochran, Thad - (R - MS)

(202) 224-5054

Web Form: cochran.senate.gov/email.html

Collins, Susan M. - (R - ME)

(202) 224-2523

Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...

Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)

(202) 224-2043

Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Coons, Christopher A. - (D - DE)

(202) 224-5042

Web Form: coons.senate.gov/contact/

Corker, Bob - (R - TN)

(202) 224-3344

Web Form: corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Cornyn, John - (R - TX)

(202) 224-2934

Web Form: cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm

Crapo, Mike - (R - ID)

(202) 224-6142

Web Form: crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

DeMint, Jim - (R - SC)

(202) 224-6121

Web Form: demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactInformation

Durbin, Richard J. - (D - IL)

(202) 224-2152

Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Enzi, Michael B. - (R - WY)

(202) 224-3424

Web Form: enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=e-mail-senator...

Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)

(202) 224-3841

Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactU...

Franken, Al - (D - MN)

(202) 224-5641

Web Form: franken.senate.gov/?p=contact

Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - (D - NY)

(202) 224-4451

Web Form: gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/

Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC)

(202) 224-5972

Web Form: lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Em...

Grassley, Chuck - (R - IA)

(202) 224-3744

Web Form: grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Hagan, Kay R. - (D - NC)

(202) 224-6342

Web Form: hagan.senate.gov/?p=contact

Harkin, Tom - (D - IA)

(202) 224-3254

Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Hatch, Orrin G. - (R - UT)

(202) 224-5251

Web Form: hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=Email-Orrin

Heller, Dean - (R - NV)

(202) 224-6244

Web Form: heller.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm

Hoeven, John - (R - ND)

(202) 224-2551

Web Form: hoeven.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator

Hutchison, Kay Bailey - (R - TX)

(202) 224-5922

Web Form: hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay

Inhofe, James M. - (R - OK)

(202) 224-4721

Web Form: inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Inouye, Daniel K. - (D - HI)

(202) 224-3934

Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/Contact/ContactDKI.cfm

Isakson, Johnny - (R - GA)

(202) 224-3643

Web Form: isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Johanns, Mike - (R - NE)

(202) 224-4224

Web Form: johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=ContactSenatorJohanns

Johnson, Ron - (R - WI)

(202) 224-5323

Web Form: ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Johnson, Tim - (D - SD)

(202) 224-5842

Web Form: johnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Kerry, John F. - (D - MA)

(202) 224-2742

Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/contact/

Kirk, Mark - (R - IL)

(202) 224-2854

Web Form: kirk.senate.gov/?p=contact

Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN)

(202) 224-3244

Web Form: klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm

Kohl, Herb - (D - WI)

(202) 224-5653

Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Kyl, Jon - (R - AZ)

(202) 224-4521

Web Form: kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Landrieu, Mary L. - (D - LA)

(202) 224-5824

Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/about/contact.cfm

Lautenberg, Frank R. - (D - NJ)

(202) 224-3224

Web Form: lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/routing.cfm

Leahy, Patrick J. - (D - VT)

(202) 224-4242

Web Form: leahy.senate.gov/contact/

Lee, Mike - (R - UT)

(202) 224-5444

Web Form: lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Levin, Carl - (D - MI)

(202) 224-6221

Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/

Lieberman, Joseph I. - (ID - CT)

(202) 224-4041

Web Form: lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/contact/email-me-about-an-...

Lugar, Richard G. - (R - IN)

(202) 224-4814

Web Form: lugar.senate.gov/contact/

Manchin, Joe, III - (D - WV)

303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3954

Web Form: manchin.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm

McCain, John - (R - AZ)

(202) 224-2235

Web Form: mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

McCaskill, Claire - (D - MO)

(202) 224-6154

Web Form: mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=contact

McConnell, Mitch - (R - KY)

(202) 224-2541

Web Form: www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=contact

Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ)

(202) 224-4744

Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/

Merkley, Jeff - (D - OR)

(202) 224-3753

Web Form: merkley.senate.gov/contact/

Mikulski, Barbara A. - (D - MD)

(202) 224-4654

Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/contact/

Moran, Jerry - (R - KS)

(202) 224-6521

Web Form: moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=e-mail-jerry

Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)

(202) 224-6665

Web Form: murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Murray, Patty - (D - WA)

(202) 224-2621

Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Nelson, Ben - (D - NE)

(202) 224-6551

Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/contact-me.cfm

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)

(202) 224-5274

Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Paul, Rand - (R - KY)

(202) 224-4343

Web Form: paul.senate.gov/?p=contact

Portman, Rob - (R - OH)

(202) 224-3353

Web Form: portman.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm

Pryor, Mark L. - (D - AR)

(202) 224-2353

Web Form: pryor.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Reed, Jack - (D - RI)

(202) 224-4642

Web Form: reed.senate.gov/contact/contact-share.cfm

Reid, Harry - (D - NV)

(202) 224-3542

Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Risch, James E. - (R - ID)

(202) 224-2752

Web Form: risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Roberts, Pat - (R - KS)

(202) 224-4774

Web Form: www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailPat

Rockefeller, John D., IV - (D - WV)

(202) 224-6472

Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Rubio, Marco - (R - FL)

(202) 224-3041

Web Form: rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Sanders, Bernard - (I - VT)

(202) 224-5141

Web Form: sanders.senate.gov/contact/

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY)

(202) 224-6542

Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm

Sessions, Jeff - (R - AL)

(202) 224-4124

Web Form: sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Constitue...

Shaheen, Jeanne - (D - NH)

(202) 224-2841

Web Form: shaheen.senate.gov/contact/

Shelby, Richard C. - (R - AL)

(202) 224-5744

Web Form: shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailsenatorshelby

Snowe, Olympia J. - (R - ME)

(202) 224-5344

Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=email

Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI)

(202) 224-4822

Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/?p=contact

Tester, Jon - (D - MT)

(202) 224-2644

Web Form: tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

Thune, John - (R - SD)

(202) 224-2321

Web Form: thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Toomey, Patrick J. - (R - PA)

(202) 224-4254

Web Form: toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact

Udall, Mark - (D - CO)

(202) 224-5941

Web Form: markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Udall, Tom - (D - NM)

(202) 224-6621

Web Form: tomudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Vitter, David - (R - LA)

(202) 224-4623

Web Form: vitter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Warner, Mark R. - (D - VA)

(202) 224-2023

Web Form: warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Webb, Jim - (D - VA)

(202) 224-4024

Web Form: webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Whitehouse, Sheldon - (D - RI)

(202) 224-2921

Web Form: whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/

Wicker, Roger F. - (R - MS)

(202) 224-6253

Web Form: wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EMa...

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR)

(202) 224-5244

Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Dirty Little Secret About the Budget

The US Government cannot pay it's bills. The credit card is maxed out. The Administration, Wall Street, and many of the Democrats in the House and Senate are begging for a credit limit increase on our collective Visa card known as the debt ceiling.

The Republican party, particularly the Tea Party wing, are insisting on very real budget cuts without tax increases, before they will consider any debt limit increase. In addition, they are demanding an amendment to the Constitution that requires a balanced budget. Why this insistence on cuts and other measures to be sure of lower spending prior to allowing the government to borrow more money? Because the one thing Congress, and especially this Administration, never does is spend less money. The Democrats are telling everyone that the must have tax increases on the “Rich” in addition to spending cuts to begin to bring our budget into balance. The “millionaires and billionaires” must pay their fair share and share some sacrifice they tell us. There are several problems with this statement, however. First of all, they are not really talking about millionaires and billionaires. There isn't enough money there. What they are talking about is wage earners who make over $200,000 per year filing separately, or $250,000 if filing jointly. According to the IRS, in 2008 3.4 million taxpayers reported adjusted gross incomes between $200,000.00 and $500,000.00.

According to the IRS, in 1992, the top 20% of wage earners paid 65% of the income tax. In 2001, when the top rate was 39.5% the top 10% of wage earners paid 64% of the income tax, and in 2008 when the top rate was 35%, the top 10% of wage earners paid 70% of the tax. The threshold for this 10% is an adjusted gross income of $113,799.00 per year. That is not what I would call excessively rich. The interesting thing about this is that the bottom 50% pay 3% of the tax, meaning that the other 40% of taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $33,048.00 and $113,798.00 pay 27% of the total income tax collected by the IRS. The percentage of tax paid by the bottom 50% has been steadily DECREASING since 2001. Federal Revenues have fluctuated from 2.0 trillion to 2.56 trillion in the years 2005 through 2010, peaking at 2.56 trillion in 2007, and dropping to 2.16 trillion in 2010. Spending, however, has steadily increased from 2.4 trillion per year in 2005 to 3.8 trillion per year estimated in 2011. The question we REALLY need to be asking, is where has that extra TRILLION dollars per year since 2008 gone?


The dirty little secret is this, in 2008 we were told that we had to pass a temporary stimulus package of nearly a trillion dollars to keep the unemployment rate below 8%. The money, we were told, would be spent on “shovel ready” projects which would put people back to work. Since then the unemployment rate peaked at over 10%, dropped down to 8.9% and has now risen back to 9.2%. Real economic growth has stagnated at a meager 1.8%, and our national debt has grown to nearly 15 trillion dollars, or 102% of GDP.

The secret is that this stimulus money isn't temporary. While the democrats claim that they can't cut the budget without throwing grandma out into the street, or starving children with autism or some such other gut wrenching evil, the fact is that 861 billion dollars is simply an increase in spending in several programs over the 2007 levels. (data obtained from the Government Printing Office). The level of spending was too high then. Granted some of the increase is in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Unemployment benefits, and those programs must be addressed, but I don't recall too many stories in the national press about folks starving in the streets in 2007. Government spending equals power in Washington DC, and those folks are loath to give up any power, so the spending, and the borrowing from our children and grandchildren continues unabated.

Serious Blog Alert! Our Government's Purse is Full Enough!

Our government does not tax too little, it spends too much.

In response to a “call congress” campaign to voice objection to a debt limit increase without a balanced budget amendment, real significant cuts in spending, and no tax increases, I received several standard “tax the evil rich” responses. In one response, a friend of mine stated that per capita GDP has increased throughout the economic meltdown. While it is true that GDP increased in 2007 and 2008, all be it at a very slow pace, GDP actually dropped in 2009 according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That being said, this “tax the rich” philosophy beg the questions how much is enough, and who is it that you consider rich? Leaving aside the fact that if you confiscated the ENTIRE wealth of the fifty richest people in the US (many of whom are democrats by the way i.e. Gates, Buffett, Ellison, Bloomberg, Page, Brin, Soros, Perelman, etc.), you get about 650 billion dollars (figures from Forbes Magazine). That is not even enough to make up half the deficit in this year's budget.

The current top rate for wage earners is 35% which cuts in at $379,150.00 of taxable income. My dear friend states that this is the lowest rates have been since shortly after the great depression. The fact is, however, that in 1992, the top rate was 31%. Be that as it may, let's explore this idea of taxing the rich some more. In 1992, the top 20% of wage earners paid 65% of the income tax. In 2001, when the top rate was 39.5% the top 10% of wage earners paid 64% of the income tax, and in 2008 when the top rate was 35%, the top 10% of wage earners paid 70% of the tax. The threshold for this 10% is an adjusted gross income of $113,799.00 per year. That is not what I would call excessively rich. The interesting thing about this is that the bottom 50% pays 3% of the tax, meaning that the other 40% of taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $33,048.00 and $113,798.00 pay 27% of the total income tax collected by the IRS. The percentage of tax paid by the bottom 50% has been steadily DECREASING since 2001. Federal Revenues have fluctuated from 2.0 trillion to 2.56 trillion from 2005 through 2010, peaking at 2.56 trillion in 2007, and dropping to 2.16 trillion in 2010. Spending, however, has steadily increased from 2.4 trillion/year in 2005 to 3.8 trillion/year estimated in 2011. The question we REALLY need to be asking, is where has that extra TRILLION dollars per year since 2008 gone? In 2009, 2010, and projected for 2011, we have spent an EXTRA trillion dollars more per year that we did in all the years gone before. Even under George Bush, who spent money like a drunken sailor, mostly on war toys, we weren't spending at anywhere close to the rate we are now. Were children starving in 2008? Were old people going without food, clothing and housing in 2008? I don't remember that. I don't remember autistic children starving in the street in 2008, do you?

So where did the money go? 28 billion dollars of it went to GE for high speed rail no one will ride. 0.5 billion for cash for clunkers, 10.6 billion for first time home buyers, 9.2 billion for child tax credits (one reason the bottom 50% pay a smaller share of the tax), 186 billion for grants to states to fund pensions, Medicaid and unemployment, 82 billion to the Department of Education and National Science Foundation (shrimp on treadmills program), 25 Billion to the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, the list goes on and on. Of the 2.4 million jobs the administration has claimed to have “saved or created” each job cost $278,000.00 in stimulus money to create or save. That is a fairly expensive way to create and save jobs, which brings me to corporate taxation.

The current corporate tax rate is 35%. When a corporation is creating a budget for coming years, one thing it must take into account is its tax liability. Along with the costs of labor, raw materials, fixed operating costs and the like, they also estimate their tax liability. When a corporation decides how much to charge for its product or service, it must take its tax liability into account. If taxes go up, the price of the good or service goes up accordingly. That means the only thing increasing corporate tax rates, or capital gains rates for that matter, does is pass that tax on to the consumer. When tax rates are unreasonably high in comparison to rates in another state or another country, it provides an incentive for a corporation to move to another state or country. Please take note of the mass exodus of companies from New York, Michigan and California and the gain in Texas. We currently have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, which explains why GE, our President's favorite corporation, moved much of its operations offshore, and paid NO corporate tax in 2010.

With all that said, it becomes clear that we do not tax too little, we spend too much. The only result we will get from raising top tax rates, is that we will shift an even higher burden on to those carrying 70% of the weight now, and diminish economic activity, pushing corporations overseas, and putting increasing strain on an overwhelmingly thin job market. With 9.1% unemployment, and REAL unemployment (including those who have given up looking) over 15%, the last thing that makes sense from an economic point of view is increase the burden on those who are carrying the bulk of the weight now. Anyone who has a sound background in market economics will say the same thing.

Finally, President Obama attacked private jet owners, saying they should lose the tax break that his administration gave them early in his term. This “break” allows a company to depreciate the cost of an airplane, or improvements to an airplane, over a period of five years instead of seven. For those of you without a background in accounting, depreciation is expensing a purchase over a period of time. If a company leases a car, for example, the monthly lease payment is an expense, and is subtracted from the company's income before tax is calculated on that income. If the company purchased the car instead of leasing it, the price of the car, minus it's expected value after seven years, has to be divided by the number of years (seven in this case) and 1/7th of that value is expensed from each year's income before tax is calculated. The only thing changing the length of depreciation for an airplane does is make the company either less likely to buy or refurbish an airplane, or extend the period of time in between such purchases. The reason the depreciation period was shortened in the first place, was to save airplane manufacturing jobs by encouraging companies to trade their planes in faster. Now we want to slow down the turnover of airplanes and put those jobs in jeopardy?

There is no clearer example of this kind of thinking as when George Herbert Walker Bush went along with the luxury tax in 1990. The reasoning was the same. It went like this; “When people are hurting, and need jobs, why shouldn't the rich pay a little more. They are buying yachts and other luxury items, like diamond rings, and we ought to put an extra tax on those items.” Against his better judgment Bush 41 went along with congress on that one. The actual effect though, as one might guess, is that “rich” people quit buying yachts, or bought them offshore. The net effect was that revenues went down, and 200,000 people who worked in the boat building industry lost their jobs. Ultimately it cost Bush the 1992 election.

If you still think “tax the rich” is a good idea, I would encourage you to read anything by Allan Meltzer, Professor of Economics at CMU, Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner in Economic Science and Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, or Ayn Rand for that matter. Rather than take money from the folks in this country who work hard, create business, and create employment for the rest of us just so we can give it to other folks to see what happens when a shrimp gets some exercise, we ought to stop the excessive spending. We should fix our long term problem of unfunded liabilities for Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security in a way that protects our seniors, and insures our safety net exists long into the future. That way we can let business get back to work doing what they do best, which is grow our economy!

History Lesson on the Fourth of July - Or So There Joe Biden!

I was appalled last evening to discover the results of a Marist poll taken on July first that found that only 58% of those polled could correctly say that the year of our independence was 1776, and only 76% could say that we became independent from England. The results were far worse for those under 30 years old! This is the kind of edumacation that Joe Biden and the NEA want for our children!

So on this Independence day, I find myself thinking about how this country came to be. I offer a short history of the founding of our nation, which will apparently be better than the one offered by public education these days.

Once upon a time, the earth was flat. This made it extremely dangerous to sail out of sight of land, as one might drop over the edge at any moment, and that could ruin an entire day! A fellow named Columbus, conned the queen of Spain out of some ships and supplies and proved the flat earthers all wrong. In the process he bumped into a new continent that no one, especially the flat earth people, had any idea was out there. The Spaniards believed there was a lot of shinny yellow metal there, and so sent more folks to explore. Word got around, as it often does. In jolly old England, they had a King who didn't like to stay married very long, mostly because none of his wives seemed able to produce a son, so he kept disposing of one wife after another. The Catholic church took a dim view of that, so, not to be restrained, King Henry formed his own church and required all his subjects to belong to the Church of England.

Some miscreants didn't like that very much, and had a desire to worship in a manner that suited them better. The King took exception and sent them packing off to the new land to worship as they pleased, and to find goodies to ship back to England, for the further enrichment the King.

After 150 years or so, these new colonies were thriving, containing some two and a half million people. The King at the time, George his name was, had helped out with some trouble the colonies were having with the Indians and the French. With the war over, he turned his attention to collecting some additional revenue to balance his budget. A lot of revenue. He reasoned that as some in the colonies were getting rich, they ought to spread the wealth around a little, contribute their fair share as it was. He put a tax on tea, which many folks in the colonies didn't like so much. They decided to brew the tea in the Boston Harbor. Next he required the colonists to purchase paper for all legal documents from England. At the same time, he was sending soldiers to the colonies to keep the peace, and requiring citizens to keep the troops in their homes. When colony legislatures objected, he disbanded them, in violation of their founding documents. He bypassed the duly appointed lawmakers and issued edicts about how the colonists were to live (is any of this sounding familiar?)

In 1776, late in the evening of the third of July, following a little skirmish a year previously in Lexington and Concord, the colony legislature's representatives finally came to agreement on the wording of a document declaring their Independence from Great Brittan. This document precipitated a prolonged conflict called The Revolutionary War, the result of which was that the Colonies were free from the tyrannical edicts of the King of England, and were free to govern themselves.

After experimenting with various ways of governing themselves for twenty years or so, including a little disagreement about whiskey and another about water rights, the colonies decided they needed a founding document which would for forever limit their federal government and allow each state to govern itself, except in areas such as arguments between the states, the common defense of the New Nation, and in arranging for trade with other nations. They called this document the Constitution of the United States of America, and it is THE foundation for the federal government's existence. The federal government is supposed to be bound by and constrained by the words in that inspired work. It is what gives our government its right to exist. It laid out a system of checks and balances to ensure that power would never be concentrated in the hands of a few, and it provided for redress of grievances against the government through the judicial branch of that government. If that fails, and the federal government becomes tyrannical, it provides the means, through the second amendment, to dissolve that government.

As the federal government reaches further and further beyond the bounds of Constitution, it heads ever closer to its own Lexington and Concord!

I hope this missive has helped clear up the confusion a bit. In any event, please enjoy your celebration of the Founding of our Great Nation! Happy Fourth everyone.

Post in Which I Endorse a Candidate, I Can't Help Myself.

OK, I'll just go ahead and admit it now, I'm a Herman Cain fan. I have been trying to keep an open mind, but I've been leaning for so long now, I've fallen over. Actually, nothing would make me so ecstatic as a Cain/Bachmann ticket, but only the delegate counts will tell.

Why Cain? So many reasons. I think the thing I like about him the most is that he knows what he doesn't know. That is an extremely rare quality these days, particularly in politics. Yet it is an essential one for the leader of the free world. Now we have a guy in the White House, who thinks he knows everything. We all see how well that is working out for us. The current President knows more than his generals, his lawyers, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American People. Every single day, he is ignoring yet another advisor, commission, or court decision. It would be one thing if his arrogance proved out in the real world, but time after time the misguided policies coming from this Administration are leading us further down the road to tragic ruin.


I was impressed right away when, in the South Carolina sound bite fest, Mr. Cain said he didn't have enough information to make an informed decision about the troops in Afghanistan. He went on to describe a well thought out, reasonable decision making process that has served his enterprises well over these many years. That kind of thought process and honesty is something I can get behind.

My heart was warmed as well, by a man who says what is on his mind. Particularly since that mind is sharp. Donald Trump says what is on his mind too, unfortunately what is on his mind is Donald Trump, and his ideas only work on reality TV and Park Avenue. If we wanted to build a spiffy new embassy somewhere or create a new show; “Congress Unclothed”, Trump would be my guy, but we have a country to save.

Mr. Cain's platform is rock solid. He is strong on the military, noting that the common defense is a primary purpose of the Federal Government. On spending we have a man who had to not just balance budgets, but turn a profit. He know about serious belt tightening, and the fact that he hasn't done it in Washington is a bonus. As we all know, few of the folks there have ever balanced a budget and even fewer have the stomach for doing it now!

Cain talks about securing our borders and strengthening existing immigration law so that it provides a path for LEGAL immigration and puts an end to illegal immigration. He speaks about expanding domestic energy production by loosening regulations on oil and coal companies, and letting free market forces work on alternative energy sources.

On the economy he is an “empowerment” guy not an “entitlement” guy. On health care, Obamacare must be repealed and replaced by market-centered, patient-centered policies that make health care more affordable for everyone. On education, one of the most important issues, he recognizes what a dismal failure our public education system has become. Mr Cain has a plan for unbundling education from the one-size fits all, federal government system to provide local choice and local control for parents over their children's education.

On social issues, Mr. Cain stands right smack in the middle of the Tea Party ideals. This is a sharp guy, who gives a GREAT speech, can think on his feet, and believes in the principals that this country was founded upon.

The other thing that has made a big impression on me though is that the national media ignores him. This morning on “Face the Nation”, Bob Schieffer did not even mention Herman Cain despite the fact that Mr. Cain finished third in the Des Moines Register poll Schieffer was extolling. Set to interview Michelle Bachmann, Schieffer correctly said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann finished first and second in the poll. But then skipping Cain completely, even though he got 10% of the tally, he incorrectly said Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich finished next after the two front-runners. I was incensed.

Time after time I have watched as Herman Cain finishes at the top, or near the top of straw polls, and likely GOP voter polls, and the media insists he hasn't got a chance. I had the chance to meet a well known Washington conservative pundit recently, and I asked him about Mr. Cain. He can't even get nominated was the response I got. Then he won the first Presidential Debate in South Carolina. On June 16^th Rasmussen had Cain 3^rd with 10% of likely GOP primary voters, and gathering steam. Yet the main stream media largely ignores him, calls him a second tier candidate, and looks around for someone else to run.

Why do I like that, you ask. Well maybe you didn't ask, but I'm going to tell you anyway. The media is scared of Herman Cain. The Democrats are REALLY scared of Mr. Cain. Unlike Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann, who they crucify on a regular basis, they have to ignore Herman Cain. He takes away their ability to claim racism every time someone criticizes our current President. If Mr. Cain is Barrack Obama's opposition in November of 2012, the race baiting tactic is all but neutralized, and the President is left to run on his record, which as we all know, and even THEY know, is abysmal.

The Tea Party loves Herman Cain. His stance on all the relevant issues is spot on. He is an inspiring speaker. He is a proven administrator. He is funny and personable and he looks good on TV. Herman Cain is the media and the Democrats worst nightmare, so they are pretending he doesn't exist for as long as they can!

G-20 Summit or WHAT was THAT?

OK, I can see that if I'm going to get serious about this whole blogging thing, I am going to have to set aside some time every day for the effort. I have been distracted the last several days by a minor medical problem and all the G-20 hubbub. I was riveted to the TV. I watched the news every time it was on, and do you know what? I still don't know anything. I know they had a meeting. I know they shook their collective fist at Iran, and I know there are now twenty of them. Beyond that I know little of the meetings themselves. Maybe that it what they intended, I just don't know.

It was very informative on other matters however. Lots of people protested. What they were protesting, even they don't know, but they were there in droves. OK free Tibet, I can wrap my brain around that one, it's not too ambiguous, Consider however this report in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Groggy but not subdued, anarchists hail protest success with little damage
Saturday, September 26, 2009
By Sadie Gurman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
They weren't stockpiling human waste to throw at police.
They didn't set cars ablaze or chain themselves together in "sleeping dragons" with PVC pipe.
The anarchists who police and media had warned for months could wreak havoc on the city during the G-20 summit didn't exactly fulfill that expectation. Instead, they smashed some windows and turned over a few Dumpsters, flooded the streets of Lawrenceville and staged sporadic uprisings for hours elsewhere, met by a large contingent of riot police at almost every turn.
Some were sprayed with OC gas, others pelted with rubber bullets. Still others were arrested in the demonstrations, which they had spent their summers planning.
Then yesterday, groggy but not subdued, the contingent joined thousands of other protesters in a city-sanctioned march that was largely uneventful, beyond some chanting laced with swear words and a little taunting of police. Some had shed their all-black attire for shorts and T-shirts.
So, were the protests everything the anarchists had envisioned during meetings and trainings?
"We tried to do what we wanted to do, and we wanted to take to the streets in a show of resistance against the G-20," one member, Alex Bradley, said. "In that respect, I think it was a success."
As the summit and the protests it spawned wound to a close yesterday, members of one of the more visible -- and vilified -- anarchist groups, the Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project, reflected on their experiences.
"Even though people had to fight to save themselves from the riot police, people continued to re mobilize so many times, we didn't let the police keep us down," said Amanda Zeiders, who tried to snap as many photos as she could during Thursday's actions. "It was great for the movement."
There were scary moments, she said, when she was separated from friends, and painful moments of dehydration. "It was intense," she said. "It was surely a great day."
The group issued a statement during Thursday's unrest declaring the "people's uprising" a success and proof of "people's willingness to resist global capitalism despite the combined forces of state repression."
Mr. Bradley described Thursday's march out of Arsenal Park in Lawrenceville as "people power," whereas yesterday's permitted event was "an appeal to people in power," each with its own merit.
The group said its arrest count -- 17 in four hours, by members' estimates -- was relatively low, and no one was badly hurt.
Mr. Bradley said the downing of Dumpsters might have been protesters' attempts to shield themselves from police, who threw tear gas and blared what he called "a sonic weapon," the long-range acoustic device.
"The Dumpsters people pushed down the road ran into an armored personnel carrier," he said. "I really hope the armored personnel carrier was all right."
The group blamed the mayhem, which left windows broken, on police "overreaction."
The Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project had been holding public meetings since early June, when it launched a Web site and issued a call to action.
"We are asking you to come to Pittsburgh with every ounce of anger and rage that you feel when your local projects refuse to manifest into something larger, fiercer, or broader, or when that anger itself forces you into isolation or alienation," the Web site said.
The anarchists quickly captured the attention of reporters and police, who, group members believe, were always keeping an eye on them.
As the summit approached, the group turned a Greenfield storefront into a "convergence space" for gatherings. Dozens of police officers in vans and a hazardous materials truck watched the headquarters from a nearby parking lot on Wednesday night, during a meeting to coordinate the next day's events. They left -- and returned again -- without incident.
"It's a psychological attack," the group's spokesman Noah Williams said at the time. "They want people to feel threatened constantly."
The anarchists also fought against what they consider media "scare stories" that claimed anarchists were squatting in vacant buildings, collecting human waste to throw during protests.
Fear later brewed over a list, posted to the Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project's Web site, of locations, including Starbucks coffee shops, police stations and banks, and other places with "links to globalism" where possible protests could take place.
Some stores boarded their windows, but there were few, if any, reports of trouble at sites on the list.
Throughout it all, anarchists tried to explain their views as simply as they could to skeptical inquirers. They left fliers at 4,500 homes and went on radio talk shows.
Patrick Young, of the anarchist Pittsburgh Organizing Group, led theoretical and tactical training workshops for demonstrators, including one on "lockboxing" with PVC pipe and chains.
He said the summit protests were an extension of the work anarchists try to do daily.
But now, he said, a break is in store.
"As soon as everyone gets out of jail, I am going to take a long, long, long nap," he said. "And probably have a couple beers."
Sadie Gurman can be reached at sgurman@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1878.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09269/1000990-482.stm#ixzz0SKfhSqQt

HUH? I re-produced the whole story here so you can see I didn't edit it, but I still don't know what the Anarchist's point is. If they were not threatening violence, the massive police presence wouldn't be necessary. Most of the banners shown on TV were about how bad Capitalism is. Now I'm by no means saying we don't have problems with the way we practice capitalism in this country, but what are the alternatives to it. I did a little snooping into anarchist theory (there is very little that I could find quickly) and it seems they offer no alternative. The orderly exchange of goods and services has to be accomplished somehow. Anytime there are more than three people clumped together, we have to figure out some way to provide for each other's needs. So unless we are all going to be camped out in the woods with no hot water or cable TV, eating nuts and berries and whatever tasty animals we can catch, we have to have some form of exchange. We can do that by a Nanny State, which forces everyone to do stuff and make stuff, and give it to the State to re-distribute, or we can have some profit or altruistic motivation. The Nanny State has been tried several times now, and the level of oppression is far worse in those cases than it is here in the good old US of A. If you really want Anarchy, have a look at Somalia, it's the best example I can think of. That is not really an ideal lifestyle if you ask me. I take a more Libertarian view myself, though like Tucker and his Machine, I don't think profit at any cost is good for us. It tends to deny opportunity to some for the benefit of others. Equal OPPORTUNITY for all is what I say, the results are up to you.

The problem is that we don't think anymore. We are not really taught HOW to think either. Our educational system is abysmal in that regard. We are taught to regurgitate information and to conform, but beyond that, original thought and expression are discouraged. We aren't even doing a good job of teaching regurgitation anymore. Just a thought (and not my own I must admit) how about complete and open disclosure of ALL financial transactions. Yes, that's what I said. Everyone could look-up on-line what everyone else spends and for what, and how much they have in the bank. The country as a whole wouldn't really stand for multi-million dollar bonuses for wall street raiders, if they really knew who, where, when and how much. Yes, your expenditure for odor-eaters would also be revealed. Sorry about that, but openness and honesty is really the best policy, if you ask me, I know you didn't, but there you have it anyway. Your contributions to my campaign for congress would also be available to anyone, so think carefully before you write that check!

That is really the point. If everyone could know what everyone was up to financially, we might all think a little more before we did something we might be ashamed of. Public conscience, what a concept!