Entries Tagged as 'Politics'

NO INCUMBENTS!

Several weeks ago I posted a “NO INCUMBENTS!” logo on my web site and BLOG.

What does it mean?

Simple, it means that if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.  And clearly our elected officials are not part of the solution — they are in fact the problem.

Look at our politicians and you will find one of the largest collections of self-centered, self-serving, egocentric, out-of-touch, power-hungry, whats-in-it-for-me group of people you will ever find.

Time and time again our politician make policy and law that benefit themselves and their friends, but not the common person who’s vote is necessary for them to gain and retain their office.

Join me and many others in deciding that their should be term limits, and impose those term limits by always electing to vote against the incumbent.

Take back your country, and once we have it back — we’ll take back all the special privileges the past politicians gave themselves (and if you think it’s not fair to them to take away something they promised themselves, why don’t you ask the people who they promised things to and took them away from).


INCUMBENTS

Originally posted 2010-04-15 02:00:40.

Spending chill…

Obama may propose a discretionary spending freeze for three years.

Hopefully he’ll fully define what discretionary means; I remember the budget surplus (you know, “extra” money when the country had a trillion dollar debt) so I don’t make any assumptions what politicians in Washington mean by any term that they don’t have a clear track record using.

Of course, he’s already exempted the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs (sound like he’s playing to the political right) from the freezes.

I think it’s great to implement “new” ideas to reign in government spending — of course I’d like to see some the “old” ideas (you know — those campaign promises Obama made that got him elected) implemented.

In the back of my mind I see this a yet another failure looming for the Obama presidency.

Originally posted 2010-01-25 20:00:46.

Barack Obama, The 44th President of the United States of America

I didn’t start out in the last election as an Obama fan, and I guess I’m still not a “fan” — I do have a great deal of respect for the man; he’s kept a very consistent stand on almost all the issues, he speaks well, he thinks through problems, and he surrounds himself with the best and the brightest (even when they may not be the closest aligned to him and his way of thinking).

But that’s not really the reason.  If you look at Obama, who he is, what his background is… and consider the American public — he shouldn’t have won the election by the margin he did (in fact, you could argue he shouldn’t have won).

The American people have reached a point where it’s clear they don’t want to continue down the same path; they don’t even want to be going the same direction — by reaching out to Obama they’re signaling their desire for change, major change.

My personal feeling is that the course of this country was irrevocably changed by FDR, but it wasn’t his band-aide approach to the problems that really turned the country around, it was WW2… but the “grand society” became well entrenched, and grew and morphed and consumed… but never really addressed the core problems with our society.

Obama appears to be willing to re-invent the “great society” and change it so that it addresses the fundamental needs of Americans, and provides them with programs that work, rather than programs that reward them for not working.

While I’m far from a Socialist, this country is far from a free-market capitalist society — we’re already fairly far down the road to socialist programs on a number of fronts — the problem being is that once you start down that road, you need to insure that you have controls and safety nets in place on all the roads, or those who are looking to take advantage of the system have outs (and let’s face it, the reason that pure Socialism doesn’t work is greed… and that’s really what you have to put checks and balances in place to moderate).

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with greed, it’s been a great motivator in our society; however, those that reap must sow — and those that make money at the expense of society must be ready to pay back for the damages they cause.

Also, Obama keeps reinforcing that we are part of a global community, so he seems to understand that we (America) can’t solve the problems of the world, nor can we even solve the problems of America without working with the rest of the world.

The biggest problem I see, is that Obama, like Hoover, takes over a country on the brink of economic and social failure — and the American people are not known for patience, consistency, or commitment…

I guess there’s a little optimist left in me that’s winning over the realist — I think he will be re-elected in four years, and he will begin to lay a new foundation to give our society a second chance, and break the historical stereotype of failed civilizations…

Originally posted 2009-01-20 12:00:07.

Political Change

I’ve seen a few articles about voters sending a signal of change this last Tuesday with an “anti-establishment” vote… the headlines sound great (along the lines of my “no incumbent” philosophy), but looking at the primary results makes me feel like the declaration of change is more comparable to ice melting in Antarctica in the Spring than anything truly significant…

Real change requires that Americans understand that we are where we are because of the short sightedness and the self-servings of  those we elect — though that said, each and ever American needs to shoulder responsibility for supporting our political leaders and our frenzied consumerism.

Simply put, there’s no such thing as a free lunch — and along with that, you can’t have everything right now.

If we American are to effect real political change, and put this country back on a track that insures our children a safe and prosperous future we need to commit to begin making changes now and pass on to each generation the responsibility and understanding of living in the present while planning for the future.

It’s not going to be an easy path, and we Americans will likely continue to have to address social ills and internal and external detractors; but we must move forward with our economy, society, and environment in a sustainable way with open hands and hearts to help the rest of the world do the same.

Originally posted 2010-05-21 02:00:42.

Religious Intolerance or Insensitivity?

One has to ask the question, why would a US Congressman choose to use a facility with a religious affiliation when a public facility is only a few blocks from the chosen site and many public facilities exist within a short distance from the chosen structure?

While this is not a violation of the US Constitution (Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or Article VI) it is an extremely poor choice and one can only conclude that the intent is for it to be a public endorsement of a single religious belief and a rejection of the beliefs of those whose are different.  My guess is the congressman would never ask a christian to step foot into a mosque (there is a mosque not far from the church that was chosen — perhaps he might decide to hold another meeting there soon).

It’s easy to see how hate is promoted in American society when elected official either actively feed it or are just insensitive to the differences that once made this country strong…

I object to any pandering of intolerance.


Congressman Miller Townhall Meeting
Tuesday, August 16
7:00 p.m. CT

Marcus Pointe Baptist Church
Main Worship Center
6205 North W Street
Pensacola, FL 32505

 

Original Link: http://jeffmiller.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=KV2BK2PRUC2HK6XTHVVK6ONOY4

Originally posted 2011-08-12 02:00:36.

Tax on the super rich.

There is a good read in The Fiscal Times, an article by Bruce Bartlett that looks at the argument over Warren Buffet’s statement about raising taxes on the super rich.

It’s a one-dimensional argument; but it does bring into question the pillar of the argument has been used to support lowering the tax rate on the super rich.

One thing I will note before sending you off to read this — it’s not the tax rate so much we should be thinking of, but the effective tax rate.  When large corporations and wealthy individuals pay their taxes they often take advantage of numerous deductions that ordinary people cannot (so called loop-holes)… so their effective tax rate ends up being near zero.

I personally think that a tiered flat tax (with no deductions/exemptions), or a value added tax (assessed at each point a good or service is transferred) are the better solutions to creating a tax system that is far less expensive to implement/enforce, and much fairer overall to everyone.

If the current system is kept, not only do the tax brackets need to be changed (as well as the way they work), but the entire tax code needs to be overhauled to remove the loop-holes (and simplify it).

Buffet May Be Right, but the Top Tax Rate is Wrong by Bruce Bartlett, The Fiscal Times

Originally posted 2011-08-20 02:00:28.

The Nightmare Continues…

With the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continuing to drain tax coffers, the first quarter 2010 reported a substantial increase in home owners who missed at least one mortgage payment.

Below are three articles by The Associated Press (with complete links to NPR).


Mortgage Delinquencies, Foreclosures Break Records
by The Associated Press

The number of homeowners who missed at least one mortgage payment surged to a record in the first quarter of the year, a sign that the foreclosure crisis is far from over.

More than 10 percent of homeowners had missed at least one mortgage payment in the January-March period, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday. That number was up from 9.5 percent in the fourth quarter of last year and 9.1 percent a year earlier.

Those figures are adjusted for seasonal factors. For example, heating bills and holiday expenses tend to push up mortgage delinquencies near the end of the year. Many of those borrowers become current on their loans again by spring.

Without adjusting for seasonal factors, the delinquency numbers dropped, as they normally do from the winter to spring.

More than 4.6 percent of homeowners were in foreclosure, also a record. But that number, which is not adjusted for seasonal factors, was up only slightly from the end of last year.

Stocks slid Wednesday as investors remain concerned with the European debt crisis. The rising number of mortgages also drew some attention. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 160 points in early trading.

Jay Brinkmann, the trade group’s chief economist, said the foreclosure crisis appears to have stabilized. Seasonal adjustments may be exaggerating the change from the previous quarter, he added.

“I don’t see signs now that it’s getting worse, but it’s going to take a while,” he said. “A bad situation that’s not getting worse is still bad.”

The number of American homeowners who have missed at least three months of payments or are in foreclosure has surged to around 4.3 million, Brinkmann estimated.

The Obama administration’s $75 billion foreclosure prevention program has barely dented the problem. More than 299,000 homeowners had received permanent loan modifications as of last month. That’s about 25 percent of the 1.2 million who started the program since its March 2009 launch.

About 277,000 homeowners, or 23 percent of those enrolled, have dropped out during a trial phase that lasts at least three months.

Economic woes, such as unemployment or reduced income, are the main catalysts for foreclosures this year. Initially, lax lending standards were the culprit. But homeowners with good credit who took out conventional, fixed-rate loans are now the fastest growing group of foreclosures.

Those borrowers made up nearly 37 percent of new foreclosures in the first quarter of the year, up from 29 percent a year earlier.

The risky subprime adjustable-rate loans that kicked off the foreclosure crisis are making up a smaller share of new foreclosures. They made up 14 percent of new foreclosures in the January-March period, down from 27 percent a year earlier.


Fannie Mae Seeks $8.4B From U.S. After $13B Loss
by The Associated Press

Fannie Mae has again asked taxpayers for more money after reporting a first-quarter loss of more than $13 billion.

The mortgage finance company, which was rescued by the government in September 2008, said it needs an additional $8.4 billion from the government to help cover mounting losses.

Fannie Mae says it lost $13.1 billion, or $2.29 per share, in the January-March period. That takes into account $1.5 billion in dividends paid to the Treasury Department. It compares with a loss of $23.2 billion, or $4.09 a share, in the year-ago period.

The rescue of Fannie Mae and sister company Freddie Mac is turning out to be one of the most expensive aftereffects of the financial meltdown. The new request for aid will bring Fannie Mae’s total to $83.6 billion. The total bill for the duo will now be nearly $145 billion.

Late last year, the Obama administration pledged to cover unlimited losses through 2012 for Freddie and Fannie, lifting an earlier cap of $400 billion.

Fannie and Freddie play a vital role in the mortgage market by purchasing mortgages from lenders and selling them to investors. Together the pair own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.5 trillion. That’s about half of all mortgages.

The two companies, however, loosened their lending standards for borrowers during the real estate boom and are reeling from the consequences.

With the housing market still on shaky ground, Obama administration officials say it is still too early to draft any proposals to reform the two companies or the broader housing finance system.

But Republicans argue the sweeping financial overhaul currently before Congress is incomplete without a plan for Fannie and Freddie. They propose transforming Fannie and Freddie into private companies with no government subsidies, or shutting them down completely.

The legislation “touches nearly every corner of the economy,” Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby said in the GOP weekly radio and Internet address over the weekend. “But these major contributors to the crisis are left unscathed,” he added, singling out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Freddie Mac Seeks $10.6B In Aid After 1Q Loss
by The Associated Press

Freddie Mac is asking for $10.6 billion in additional federal aid after posting a big loss in the first three months of the year. It’s another sign that the taxpayer bill for stabilizing the housing market will keep mounting.

The McLean, Va.-based mortgage finance company has been effectively owned by the government after nearly collapsing in September 2008. The new request will bring the total tab for rescuing Freddie Mac to $61.3 billion.

Freddie Mac said Wednesday it lost $8 billion, or $2.45 a share, in the January-March period. That takes into account $1.3 billion in dividends paid to the Treasury Department. It compares with a loss of $10.4 billion, or $3.18 a share, in the first quarter last year.

The company, however, cautioned that new accounting standards make it difficult to compare the most recent quarter with the year-ago period. In the first quarter of this year, Freddie Mac was forced to bring $1.5 trillion in assets and liabilities onto its balance sheet, causing the company’s net worth to plunge by $11.7 billion.

Nevertheless, the company’s CEO Charles Haldeman said, “We are seeing some signs of stabilization in the housing market, including house prices and sales in some key geographic areas.”

He cautioned, though, that the housing market “remains fragile with historically high delinquency and foreclosure levels, and high unemployment among the key risks.”

Created by Congress, Freddie Mac and sibling company Fannie Mae buy mortgages from lenders and package them into bonds that are resold to global investors. As the housing bubble burst, they were unable to raise enough money to stay afloat, and the government effectively nationalized them.

Freddie’s new request will bring the total taxpayer tab for both companies to about $126 billion.

With the housing market still on shaky ground, Obama administration officials argue that it is still too early to draft any proposals to reform the two companies or the broader housing finance system.

But Republicans argue that the sweeping financial overhaul currently before Congress is incomplete without a plan for Fannie and Freddie. Senate Republicans propose transforming Fannie and Freddie into private companies with no government subsidies, or to shut them down completely.


The deficit was $1.2 – $1.3 trillion when Obama took the reigns; some projections put it to be as high as $10 trillion in 2020… and while I’m not a fan of Obama, much of that was set in motion before he tripped over his own feet.

Originally posted 2010-05-20 02:00:51.

Separation of Church and State

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state.

The phase “separation of church and state” comes from a letter written in 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists from Danbury [Connecticut]; but the concept pre-dates the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and was largely championed in it’s adopted form by James Madison (the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights).

The ideological basis of the separation of church and state are often credited to English philosopher John Locke and his principle of social contract.  It can also be seen implicitly in the flight of Roger Williams from Massachusetts to Rhode Island.

Many in the religious right argue that our founding fathers did not intend fro the First Amendment to create a godless country; and they continue to argue that the United States is a Christian nation, and Christian beliefs are centric to the nation and the Constitution.  However, that argument is not supported by the verbiage of the Treaty of Tripoli.

The Treaty of Tripoli, (unanimously) ratified by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams (one of the founding fathers) in 1797 contains in Article 11 the following:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

It seems clear that it isn’t necessary to dig into the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or read in depth biographies of the founding fathers to understand that they never intended religion to be a central pillar of United States and that it was in fact their intent to prevent religion (particularly organized religion) from exerting control on the government and it’s policies.

Why then, two hundred years later do Christians seems to have carte blance to have the precepts of their religion imposed on the country as law and policy?

One place you can clearly see the Christians exercising control is state and local mandated ordinances forbidding retail operations on Sunday (particularly as it relates to alcohol sales).  While perhaps not as flagrant as it was fifty years ago, it’s is still clearly an affront to the religious freedom and separation guarantied by the US Constitution and a fundamental founding principal of this county.

To [mis]quote Lewis Carrol … the time has come the walrus said to speak of many things …

My personal belief is that each and every time any governmental unit attempts to impose the will of an organized religion there should be quick and severe recourse.

Religious invocations should be forbidden in any governmental sponsored event (that includes public school events, local governmental meetings, etc); civil oaths should be the default in any judicial or administrative hearing; and laws which are based solely on religious fundamentals stricken down.

Christians now account for less than 75% of the adult US population, and that number has been decreasing at an increasing rate over the past two decades with non-religious individuals the fastest growing segment (currently over 15% of the adult US population).

The United States was founded on the principles of freedom of religion (including freedom from religion), it’s time we honor the core values of those who built the framework that has endured the tests of time by ending religious persecution once and for all.

Originally posted 2010-08-30 02:00:51.

Boeing

I’ve seen a number of initiatives from Boeing that are targeted at trying to get a US DOD contract for supplying tankers to the US Air Force.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Boeing as a potential supplier for tankers (though I would like everyone to review why we need to build tankers period); but Boeing seems to be forgetting that with government contracts, it’s the lowest bidder who wins.

Boeing talks about American jobs, know-how, unfair competition from Air Bus (well, Boeing probably thinks any competition is unfair)… but they don’t highlight the fact that they simply aren’t competitive.

Welfare capitalism to large is just another form of socialism — and part of the “trickle down” philosophy (the question is how much get’s skimmed of with huge executive bonuses and how much really does trickle down).

We need to think global; and keep moving forward to creating a global economy and global society rather than trying to make sure the grass in our own yard stays the greenest (of course we can talk about this on a state-by-state basis just as easily as a nation-by-nation basis).

I say, the the low bidder win; and let’s make sure that the defense budget is treated with the same scrutiny and cuts that other budgets are — waste is waste, and “saving” our troops (who were put in danger by a lie by George W) just isn’t a reasonable excuse to keep spending on destruction.

Originally posted 2010-04-29 02:00:45.

All the news fit to print…

Hmm… maybe that should be all the bs that can be gotten away with!

When you read news articles or when people relay to you “facts” be sure and do your homework; read accounts of the same events on multiple un-related sources.  In fact it’s often good to get a perspective from an international source.

Take a look at any of the facts, figures, and claims — try and verify those against an authoritative source.

If the information reported is important to you; check to see if any of the “facts” it’s based on, or claims it makes are updated over time.

Most journalists report the news impartially from their perspective; but it is from their perspective.  Many journalists and news organization like to sensationalize the news or majorly spin it to suit their agenda.

Question everything.

Originally posted 2009-02-12 01:00:46.