The Debt Crisis: Why We Are Not Done Yet

Who blinked? Was it President Obama, the Senate, or the Republicans? I think they all did. The bottom line is that we are still in debt up to our eyeballs. The American people are still in denial about the seriousness of it all.

The Daily Mail said it best:

At the root of all this is sheer hubris. From the Eighties onwards, the American people have refused to accept that to keep their status as the world’s most powerful economy, they need to make tough choices over the size of the government budget and levels of taxes.

Instead of working hard and consuming less, they have allowed themselves to grow fat and lazy. They’ve racked up debts as if there were no tomorrow, forgetting that one day those dues must be paid.

Those are harsh words to be sure. But wait, there's more....(at the same link)

It is no exaggeration to say that the American economy is at a crossroads.

If Washington somehow managed to conquer its addiction to debt, then the great productive capacities and inventiveness of the American continent would once again be unleashed.

Just like always there is hope. In order to make it happen you and I need to talk to our neighbors. We need to contact our elected mouthpieces. We need to demand financial reform in government.

Here is a short list of what has to happen:

• Reform the tax collection system. The income tax no longer works. Switch to the Fairtax.
• Reduce spending and government to only those items that absolutely need to be funded. That means that Defense is on the table and so is Government Charity such as welfare.
• Create a line item in the budget specifically to pay down the debt.

It can be done. It must be done. If it isn't done then you will likely die in poverty and your last view of this world will be your children and grandchildren wallowing in it as well.


Technorati Tags: debt president obama congress spending budget debt ceiling debt crisis

HR25; Fairtax gets a hearing

My Loyal Readers, all three of them, know that I support elimination of the income tax. We all know that the tax is unfair and subject to corruption at any level. I would prefer a simple national sales tax without any frills. After all, just look at how many states operate that way. If I had to, I could live with a flat income tax. A flat tax still leaves a lot of room for blatant violations of taxpayer rights. It still leaves room for corruption as well. But, it beats what we have now.

This last Monday the House Ways and Means Committee finally, after only about a decade, got around to giving the Fairtax a hearing. This is a landmark event. Under the august leadership of Charlie "the taxman never cometh" Rangel, HR25 never got an even break. Even if this version doesn't get a vote it shows a bit of momentum.

If you read anything about politics you know that anyone who goes to DC is corrupt. I'm sure that some, if not all, either mean or meant well. But, the constant compromise and the seniority system pretty much ensure that no one can hold his or her ideals very high. And, taxes are the vehicle by which it happens. Consider if you will the sheer volume of the tax code. Consider if you will who benefits. Every break will help out someone. Every break can be translated into either money for campaigns or votes in November.

On the flip side we also know who suffers on this tax scheme. It isn't the super rich. Taxes to them are naught more than an expense to be managed. And, most of them pay capital gains taxes. It isn't the poor either. The poor do not pay taxes. Instead they are forced to publicly demonstrate every year that they don't have what it takes to succeed. It is the middle class that suffers.

We, the middle class, get to divulge every bit of our personal lives to the IRS. Our employer is required to verify how much we report as income. Just imagine a pissed off IRS employee with access to the last ten years of your life. They know where you live, where you work, how much you made or lost, when you got promoted or demoted. They also know if you rent or own your home, and how often you deal with doctors. If you give to charity, they know it. Can you say Identity Theft?

Anyone with a lick of sense can see that the tax code is broken. The same person can also see that denigrating a system that is already in use in most of the states of the union has to have an ulterior motive.

Take a look at the youtube video of the hearings. Take note of the guys that are most negative. Ask yourself what they have on the table that will go away if the income tax becomes history. I could live with someone being skeptical. I can understand how someone might not be well enough informed to understand just how much of an improvement this legislation is. I mean, it's not like this bill has been held up by this committee for ten years. It aint like there aren't several Fairtax books, best sellers, that break it down to the nuts and bolts.

There is such a thing as loyal opposition. But, I think what we are seeing now is opportunistic opposition. So, take this opportunity to look at people like Bruce Bartlett, Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), or Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). Find out how they profit by the current system. Then, let them know that they are profiting via your quality of life.

Technorati Tags: tax taxes fairtax hr25 taxation

Is Spanking Illegal?

I cannot believe that in my own state, the STATE has deemed spanking a child to be illegal. Folks we are not talking about child abuse here. We are talking about a woman who exercised her rights to discipline her child. By all appearances this wasn't a case of abuse. It was a case of the Judge going way too far.

"You don't spank children today," said Judge Jose Longoria. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children."

Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a "pretty simple, straightforward spanking case." They noted she didn't use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.

Judge has harsh words for Mom before sentencing her for spanking her kid

Why do we tolerate the state interfering in our personal liberties? You and I may not believe that spanking is the most effective form of discipline anymore but does that give the state the right to dictate it? Hell no. This is an example of the state getting on the bandwagon. By and large society no longer follows the train of thought that spanking is good. But, that doesn't mean it is abuse either. By bringing this case before the judge, and by her idiotic ruling, the door has closed another inch on your right to be the decider in your own home.

Tell your elected representatives to reign in stupid judges.

civil liberties parenting activist judge law spanking

Political Jokes

Ya gotta hand it to Congressman Weiner. I mean this guy is apparently the total package. Errr, well, you can be the judge of that I guess. At least he's not campaigning on the idea that we'll be seeing more of him as time goes on. Or, that he's an up-and-comer. I know that I should be more respectful of an elected representative. But, c'mon folks, if he's gonna put it out there ...

Now that I got all the bad jokes out of my system we can get serious. Is this the guy you want making decisions for you? Is he an example for your kids? Even if we don't care about his private life, and we shouldn't, HE LIED. That's the deal breaker for me. HE LIED. His integrity isn't worth squat and if he was my congress critter I'd be working on cancelling his contract in a very near future.

It's too bad that Congress cannot strip him of the ability to work and kick his lying ass to the curb. I hope he mans up, and bows out.

Should Electric Cigarettes Be Banned?

It's time to do a change up on this blog. So instead of politics, let's look at your personal liberties and the politics of fear. Folks that is "FEAR". Absolute shrill, high pitched, 60's or 80's scream queen crazy fear.

I am an e-cigarette "vaper". I smoked for about thirty years give or take. I remember when all public transportation had smoking areas in the back of the bus or plane. I remember when my high school had a designated smoking area. I also remember falling out and the Platoon Sergeant saying "Smoke em if you got em" or "The smoking lamp is lighted". It's a bygone era.

With the eCig I can vape away without hurting anyone else. And as an American I should be able to. Remember, our liberties should only stop when they infringe on someone else. It's that simple, and thanks to the rule makers and a myriad of agencies both public and governmental; that complex.

I blog all the time about doing due diligence on political candidates and causes. So, here is a chance to do due diligence on someones civil liberties. Should vaping (e-cigarette use) be allowed in public places or should it be banned along with tobacco cigarettes? Do you know what an electric cigarette is? Do you know how to form an educated opinion? Or, are you merely part of the 80 percent that will go along with the first media outlet or website report? I'm going to ask you to do something no blogger should ever ask; Namely, after reading this entry, leave my blog and read the two links I provide that issue a pro and con. Then come back and comment or not. In any event, thanks for stopping by.

Here is the first side of the story. It is filled with authoritative statements that sound damning. I almost quit my electronic cigarette in fear and went back to smoking; NOT. If you don't know how to do your due diligence, this would be the group forming opinions that your congressman or local mayor might make their decisions on. Think of all the other regulations both public and private levied on your liberties. This is how it goes down. You don't have to agree with either piece. But any restriction on your right to choose how to live your life needs a really hard look.

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America’s first antismoking organization, strongly supports the need for legislation to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes, e-cigars, and e- pipes [e-cigs] in workplaces, public places, and other areas where smoking is not permitted in order to protect the overwhelming majority of the public who do not use such devices from exposure to chemicals in the e-cig vapors, and the potential attendant health risks to nonusers.

On the other hand, there is a rebuttal. And, it actually comes from Australia. It addresses each of the allegations and arguments made in the anti e-cig piece. Most people who vape (as opposed to smoke, since we exhale vapor without particulate matter) already know a lot more about their product than I knew about cigarettes as a smoker. So, I am need you, the average joe, to read and form an opinion one way or the other. But, even more important I am need you to have an informed opinion you can discuss with others. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me. I do mind if I did my homework and they didn't. Onward.

The first organisation to respond to SMOKESCREEN’s initial concerns was ASH Australia. Some of the information they provided causes us to rethink some of our positions and change our focus according. Unfortunately much of their correspondence led us to believe that ASH was more focused on the anti-tobacco ideology rather than the solid science of Tobacco Harm Reduction.

After reading the latest news from ASH America there is no longer any doubt at all. Check out our deconstruction on their article “Why Ban Use of E-Cigarettes in No-Smoking Area”. Let’s try and ignore the bad english and regular spelling mistakes and just focus on what we do best – the raw science.

There it is. The pro and con just waiting for you to decide and maybe research a bit more. Go for it, I promise that the internet will still be there when you're done :)

The first quoted website, ASH, came from here.
The second site, Smokescreen , came from here.

Technorati Tags: civil liberties electronic cigarette ecig e-cig