When is enough enough?

I don't trust politicians and I don't care what they say or how they say it.   The media say Obama isn't bold enough; Romney doesn't relate to the average person; Santorum is living in the wrong century; and Gingrich carries a grenade in his pocket with the pin pulled.   All of these things are probably true but does it really matter?  Jon Huntsman said Americans were suffering from a deficit of trust.  But it isn't just politicians.  I have reached a point where I simply don't trust any corporation, small business, service provider, or product. 

For several years I have paid my communication bill on line directly through Verizon.  At the end of last year, Verizon removed money from my bank account and applied it to a customer in upstate New York.    I made six phone calls and there were three faxes sent by me and the bank to Verizon.  The New York customer even notified the company that a mistake had been made.  It took Verizon thirty two days to return the money.   I switched to Comcast the beginning of the month.  The service came with Norton Security Suite which I have always liked.  Almost immediately my laptop started acting up.  The keyboard numbers kept coming up incorrect and I couldn't install any windows updates.  I called Comcast and was told that the problem had to be with the Sony computer.   Last week, I contacted Sony online and a technician told me my laptop was corrupted and when did I last optimize it.   Having no idea what he was talking about I immediately went into panic mode.  I was talked into purchasing a service plan for $299.99.   I came to my senses about two hours later, went back online to cancel the purchase.  This same tech engaged in a one hour dialog with me on why I should keep this one year service plan.  His supervisor even agreed to extend it for an additional six months.   I refused to give in and I got a little angry that they didn't offer an eighteen month plan in the first place.   I was told that I would be charged $25.00 for the cancellation and $34.00 for fixing the problem that caused me to call in the first place.  I refused the service charge since it was supposed to be free.  Later that evening, I discovered the problem had not been fixed.  I learned today that I was still charged the $25.00 cancellation fee (I guess this goes directly into their petty cash account). 

Yesterday, I spoke to a man from Xfinity tech support who wanted me to purchase a plan to correct the problem.  I refused because I don't believe in coincidences.  I had no problem with the laptop for the three years before Comcast.  I later found out the problem was with a program called Comcast Security Guard which had also been installed.  Once I removed it everything worked fine.  I am so sick of these companies coming up with new ways to put the screws to us.  My service with Comcast wasn't even a month old and their Xfinity tech probably knew what would solve the problem, but they wanted money.  I think that businesses have determined that if they swindle 100 people, only 5% will complain.  What a windfall!  It doesn't matter how big the company is or how much money they make, it isn't enough.

I THINK . . .: Only card carrying Christians can be President.

I THINK . . .: Only card carrying Christians can be President.: Franklin Graham was a guest of Morning Joe this morning and he gave us quite a lesson in who is a Christian. Graham refused to say Presiden...

Only card carrying Christians can be President.

Franklin Graham was a guest of Morning Joe this morning and he gave us quite a lesson in who is a Christian.  Graham refused to say President Obama was a Christian.  He said we will have to ask him.  As for Mitt Romney, Graham said Mormons are not really Christians.  Graham's statement dovetails with that of Rick Santorum who said that Obama has a theology that is not in the mainstream.  When I listen to these guys I have to check to see if I am watching an episode of "Back to the Future” or are these guys living on another planet or in some parallel universe.  Grahams says that the question is really "what is a Christian?”  I thought Christians were people who loved God and loved their neighbor.  

Why can't folks just own up to the fact that they do not want a black President even if he found the cure for cancer?   Last week Obama was being accused of violating religious freedom, now Graham and his kind want to violate Obama's.   Small minded people must be really upset that attacking Obama's performance isn't enough because they are going to great lengths to delegitimize him.   The other day I heard that someone said "if he had met Jesus before he met Christians, he might have liked him."   I can certainly identify with this sentiment.  Graham and Santorum give Christianity a bad name just as Bin Laden gave Islam a bad name.   Considering how popular Graham is and Santorum's front runner status, I guess a young Muslim or Jewish child had better give up any notion that she/he can grow up and become President.  It is time to admit that if you want to know what many Americas are really made of simply tear up its founding documents. Watching Franklin Graham today, all I could think of was this cannot be Rev. Billy Graham proudest moment. 

I THINK . . .: What are we going to do?

I THINK . . .: What are we going to do?: I think we are in the midst of a critical time in our history. For starters, President Obama failed to push the Bowles Simpson plan for de...

What are we going to do?

I think we are in the midst of a critical time in our history.   For starters, President Obama failed to push the Bowles Simpson plan for deficit reduction.  The plan was big and bold although somewhat light on entitlement reform.  Nevertheless, it recommended tax reform which included lowering the rates but eliminating most of the loopholes.  Everyone agrees that our tax code is costing billions of dollars in revenue and is simply unfair to those of us who do not have the lawyers and lobbyist to bribe our elected officials.  In spite of a consensus to reform the code, no one, including the President, is moving towards that end.  Reforming the tax code would mean, among other things, that companies like General Electric would pay corporate taxes and the rich would pay more.  We keep hearing that the problem is so complicated that it cannot possibly be resolved in the near future.  So the matter was put on the back burner.  It is like putting off cleaning your room because it is too cluttered. 

Next, the real reason tax reform is dead is that solving complicated problems don't garner any votes in the next election.  During any six year period, the President has to be concerned about an election every four years, House members every two years, and Senators every six years.  Raising money for the next election begins as soon as the returns are in.  This leaves little time to tackle serious issues.   Getting elected or reelected seems to be the real job description of our politicians.  If any governing takes place, it is merely coincidental.  Take for example Super Pacs.  Last week, Obama reversed his position on taking money from these pacs.  In 2010 he said that these Super Pacs were a threat to our democracy.  This year he says he needs the dough to win the election.  I guess Obama will worry about the threat again if he gets reelected.  Great example of our democracy taking second place to money.  

Consider the issue of a budget, despite the law requiring both Houses of Congress to pass a budget every year, it has been over 1000 days since the Senate passed one.  Obama's new Chief of Staff said on Sunday that the reason the Senate has not passed a budget is the requirement of 60 votes. Apparently, no one informed Mr. Lew that this talking point doesn't fly since passing a budget takes only 51 votes and the Senate has 51 Democrats and 2 Independents who vote with the Democrats.  The Democrats have had a majority over 1000 days.  No budget means no criticism of Democrats, a threat to reelection.  On Monday, President Obama rolled out his 2013 budget.  Those on the right see it as just a campaign tool. Those on the left see it as a way to rally voters to reject the Republicans in 2012.   Everyone knew the budget would be dead on arrival but this was only the latest in a series of Obama proposals that would never become law but would drive up his base. These political games really are a waste of taxpayer money: reams of paper being generated to no end; lots of fuel being burned to transport the President from one swing state to another to deliver his latest message; and politicians getting a paycheck. I am beginning to wonder if we need politicians at all.  If you are not in the military or wealthy, has your life been truly affected by anything these politicians have done over the last year?  I don’t think so.  In fact, the death of one of the greatest singer in the world touched more lives in a single day than Obama, John Boehner, and Harry Reid touched over the last two years.  Oh, I forgot, wage earners did get an extra $20.00 a week in their paycheck.  Unfortunately, this extra money is temporary and will eventually come to an end either before or after it is repaid to the Social Security Trust.

On April 15, 2012, the IRS will collect tax revenues.  If every politician took the next year off, people would still get their Social Security and SSI; health care providers would get their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements; and Veterans would receive their benefits.  Most of the agencies, including Defense, would continue to function. Of course, political pundits would have to look for another line of work, cable news outlets would temporarily freeze up, and late night comedians would have to come up with some new lines.  But it would not be the end of the world; in fact, it might just be the beginning of something new.

Can we look to any point in history to help us figure out what are we going to do?  Ron Paul is on the right track when he says something has been fundamentally wrong with our system for a long time but judging from his all over the place rhetoric, I don't think he really knows what it is.  

I THINK . . .: Has the Federal Government gone too far this time

I THINK . . .: Has the Federal Government gone too far this time: The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 mandates that employers who offer health insurance must include coverage for contraceptives, includin...

Has the Federal Government gone too far this time

The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 mandates that employers who offer health insurance must include coverage for contraceptives, including the morning after pill, and sterilization.  A narrow exemption will apply to houses of worship.  But schools, charities, and hospitals run by religious organizations are not exempt.  The Catholic Church and some Protestant religions are up in arms.  Those in favor of the narrow exception are citing polls showing the high percentage of women, including Catholic women, agree that women should have access to contraceptives as justification, but they overlook or ignore the broader question.  Does a requirement that religious hospitals, schools, and charities offer contraceptives and sterilization violate the Constitution?  Most people don't know that the first two prohibitions in the First Amendment are "making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, . . .[and]  impeding the free exercise of religion."  These prohiblitions come even before speech and the press.  Based on the history I was taught, religion was the driving motivator for the early settlors to come here.  

Since shortly after it's founding, Catholic doctrine has prohibited the use of contraception just as it decries abortion.  If the doctrines mean nothing than how do we define religion?  I am not a Catholic and I believe that if more people used contraceptives there would not be so many children born out of wedlock to mostly poor women.  However, what I and the majority of people think about this narrow exception is irrelevant if it does not satisfy the First Amendment.  What the fickle public thinks should never be the reason for most things.  Consider what the majority of the citizens of California thought when they voted Prop 8 to ban same sex marriages.  Yesterday, the 9th Circuit ruled that the ban was unconstitutional.  If we say that it is okay that the Constitution prohibits a ban on same sex marriage but we should disregard the possibility that this same Constitution might prohibit a requirement that religious hospitals, schools and charties provide coverage for contraceptives and sterilization, we are talking out of both sides of our mouth.  We are engaging in ideological double talk.  We can't have it both ways.  Either the Constitution stands for something or it stands for nothing.   Further, It does not help resolve this issue of religious freedom by some people ridiculing clergy members, questioning a religious belief as outworn, or bringing up Viagra.

Debating the issue of whether such a narrow exemption to providing contraception unconstitutionally tramples on religious doctrine is one of the unintended consequences of broad and sweeping federal legislation, in this case, the Affordable Health Care Act.  It should be becoming clear that this law is doing more than just mandating that everyone have health insurance.  I think it is time we stopped spending money of polls, and start spending it on education.   An uneducated citizenry is the pawn of ideology. 

I THINK . . .: Keeping the poor poor

I THINK . . .: Keeping the poor poor: Yesterday, Mitt Romney said he was not concerned about the poor, they have a safety net and if it needs repairing he will fix it. The Obama...

Keeping the poor poor

Yesterday, Mitt Romney said he was not concerned about the poor, they have a safety net and if it needs repairing he will fix it.  The Obama people intend to use just the "not concerned about the poor" as a tool against Romney in the campaign in November.  They intend to take the statement out of context to persuade voters to reject Romney.  But this is not a tactic unique to the Democrats.  Even Romney used a line from a speech delivered by Obama which was a quote from John McCain.  I think that these tactics are not only dishonest but they all but scream out to us "you are so stupid that I can say anything and you will believe me.".   I once told a friend never to read to someone a passage from a book which says "I hate you and I am going to kill you."  I told her if that person were to wind up dead, a prosecuter, with the judge's permission, would force an admission that my friend said this to the victim and a conviction could ensue.  Taking things out of context can have terrible consequences.  At least when Romney was called on his use of a statement from the Obama speech, he owned up to it and said "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." 

I don't know if Romney cares about the poor.  But I do know that Democrats don't care about them.  Democrats have the monopoly on keeping people in poverty.  While the poor need a safety net which does need fixing, it is the Democrats who oppose school choice, support teachers unions, support dumbing down education, insert the loopholes in the tax code, think it is okay for immigrants not to learn English, allow the Walmarts to come into town and drive out small businesses, create an environment in the inner cities which foster food deserts, and promise a chicken in every pot in exchange for a vote. 

But every thinking person knows a safety net, even a fixed one, is not the solution to poverty.  The only solution is to provide a vehicle out of poverty.   Whether we like it or not, we, as a people, are joined at the hip.  So long as there is no way for an individual to get, he will take.  We need to come to the realization that if one person is in poverty, we are all in poverty. 

I THINK . . .: What Education?

I THINK . . .: What Education?: When I was a student in the public schools, educated women did not have many options. Consequently, I had some of the best and the brightes...