Posts Tagged ‘government’

The Love Chronicles, You Can Hear Them Talking!

Posted: November 3, 2013 in Health and wellness, Life, News and politics
Tags: , , , , ,
2

How do you Know if a Politician is Lying

You can Hear them Talking

Obamacare’s critics are going to town on the cancellation letters millions of Americans are receiving from their health insurers, informing them that their health plans won’t conform to the new federal standards for health coverage as of Jan. 1.

We’re supposed to be scandalized by this, since President Obama himself assured everyone that if they liked their insurance they’d be able to keep it. And people just love plans that in some cases cost just $50 a month. At that price, what’s not to love?

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: “junk health insurance.” Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They’ve typically been pitched to people who couldn’t find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

“People buy a plan that’s terrible,” says Nancy Metcalf, Consumer Reports senior project editor for health, “and if they get sick, they don’t even know they don’t have insurance.”

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy’s coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization — barely enough to cover a day and half and a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

Many of the supposedly bereft insurance customers being paraded before viewers of network and cable news — and dredged up by House Republicans during the theatrical grilling of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — fall into this junk category. The news reporters never seem to lay out the benefits actually provided by these low-premium policies their subjects supposedly love, or their steep back-end costs if they actually get sick.

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. Consumer Reports examined Barrette’s Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette’s $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she’s on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services — and that only if her treatment is for “complications of pregnancy.” Nothing for outpatient services. Plus Barrette is not of an age where pregnancy is going to be an issue, so basically there was no coverage. This is one of the cases Fox news paraded before us as a “horror” story of lost insurance the customer loved and wanted to keep. Might have just as well cuddled up in bed with a timber rattler.

“She’s paying $650 a year to be uninsured,” said an insurance expert Consumer Reports Nancy Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, “she would have lost the house she’s sitting in.”

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. Metcalf estimated that she’ll be eligible for “real insurance that covers all essential health benefits” for as little as $165 a month — a higher premium than she’s paying now, sure, but one that won’t cost her her home.

That raises the question of whether the insurers sending out these cancellation notices are trying to cheat their customers, expecting insurance companies to play fair with their customers is as pointless as expecting dogs not to drink from the toilet, but what’s the excuse of the reporters who retail these yarns without fully checking them out? You know how I feel  about that!

It’s time to tamp down the breathless indignation about these health plan cancellations. Many of the departing plans are being outlawed for good reason, and many of the customers losing them have no idea how much financial exposure they were saddled with in the old days. That’s the real scandal in American health insurance, and Obamacare is designed, rightly, to fix it. Look, I personally know people who have, and have had these junk insurance policies. This article and what I wrote here is the truth, they are not only junk, but they put your property and home in danger. Hospitals do go after everything you owe of value if you cannot pay. I know a nice lady, had a stroke, luckily she rehabbed nicely, no thanks to her insurance. Turned out it paid for nothing. The hospital attached her home. Luckily for her, she has three sons who were able to sell the paid for home and with the proceeds pay off the hospital and get her the rehab she needed. They then pooled their money and bought back their mothers house. So now they are all three sharing a mortgage on a house that had been paid off years ago thanks to junk insurance. The fact that our politicians are still playing politics and not doing what is right for you and me should piss you off.

Michael Hiltzik posted the original article in the Los Angeles Times; I edited and added my own thoughts and points along the way.

Here in California you can use the national website, but we set up our own called Covered California. It also had some original glitches, which have been worked out. Mostly caused by the huge mass of people who attempted to access it on opening day. However California, instead of griping and complaining, has made an effort to make it work. You can compare what you have and what is covered with what is available and compare the cost. There are numbers to call with questions. I have heard no one complaining so far, even Fox is keeping its mouth shut, I guess they couldn’t find anyone willing to prevaricate for money in this case.  At least so far as I know!

The Love Chronicles, Everybody Got Left Behind

Posted: July 26, 2013 in Life, News and politics
Tags: , , , , ,
1

Everybody Got Left Behind

By

John Love

Sequestration, is it necessary? Well I personally think it was a mistake. But since Washington is busy playing the blame game and disagreeing on everything until they get their way, all the way, or pout! Then while they are pouting they pass nothing, do nothing but posture to the press, blow anything and everything out of proportion until congress is just a stale excuse for what used to be our governing body. But lets put that aside for now. I don’t see anyone getting anything done, so the sequester is not likely to go away anytime soon. I would like to address the Indian Nations and how they are being decimated by sequestration.

If you went to school in Council with the class of 1968, especially junior high, then you probably remember Dan Foster. His father was the Minister of the Highway Tabernacle Church. Well he was, and is, an American Indian. He is now Dr. Dan Foster Psy, D., M.S. or in long hand a clinical, forensic, and health psychologist. He is deputy director of the hospital on the Rosebud Reservation, as well as the supervising clinical psychologist. He was and still is one of my best friends and since we have stayed in contact I have tried to stay abreast of what is happening in the Indian Nations because I know it is important to him, so I make it important to me.

It is the same today as it has always been since the 19th century. What politicians enact in Washington either ignores the Indian or takes even more from them. Sequestration should not be something that includes Indian Country. The reservations depend almost entirely on federal funds. Most politicians have taken the tack that the sequester is nothing more than a mild headache for a country that needs to tighten its belt. This is coming from a group in which the poor among them is at the very least a millionaire.  They are ignoring the fact that the cuts are real, specific, very wide in their scope, and brutal. The victims are already among the poorest, sickest, and isolated in this country!

Now at this juncture do not dare to jump on your high horse and start spouting any such garbage that sounds like get a job, or get off the dole. This group is different in the most important of ways. They are a conquered people. Yes they were driven off their land, killed and starved until they were just small groups of survivors of what once were great nations. As a conquered people they were entitled to live by treaties signed by them and the U.S. Government. I won’t bother to remind you how many treaties the U.S. government has trashed for the sole purpose of taking more and more land until most tribes are living in the armpit of a desert or swamp.  Even before sequestration America was already in treaty violation. Money for police forces, medical services, and schools usually runs out halfway through the year, which is a violation of the trust we owe these people.

Richard Zephier, executive director of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, recently told Annie Lowrey of The Times, and I quote:

“The damage is being done to agencies and programs whose budgets rely nearly entirely on federal sources, now being slashed. In signing treaties with Indian nations in return for land, the federal government promised a wide array of life-sustaining services. One of the most important is the Indian Health Service, which serves about two million people on reservations and is grossly underfinanced even in good times. It routinely runs out of money halfway through the year. Though Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ health were exempted from sequestration cuts, the Indian Health Service was not. It stands to lose about $228 million in 2013 from automatic sequester cuts alone, out of a $4 billion budget. That will mean 3,000 fewer inpatient admissions and 800,000 fewer outpatient visits every year.”

Education, the most important tool to combat the problems that reservations are plagued have been slashed dramatically. Almost a third of the education budget for the Navajo of Arizona was cut, which was not nearly enough as it was!

Ok, I know that there are a lot of problems on reservations, alcoholism and drug addiction to name just two, but cutting police forces and health services does not help. Again, let me reiterate, we waged war and conquered a people that were, especially in the west,  primarily a hunter-gatherer society. As such they did not mesh well with the populations they found around them after they were herded onto reservations. So we owe it to them to not only honor treaties to the letter of the law, but also to the original intent of the words they contained. It goes without saying that if we went back and enforced the original treaties as signed, the Indians would own more than a few states. So honoring our duty to the Indians and actively looking for ways to help them assimilate instead of just making a huge ghetto out of the reservations is our duty. I would appreciate it if each of you would write you congressman and express your desire that the Indian Nation should not be part of the sequestration. Our politicians have enough to be ashamed of without adding insult to injury.

The Love Chronicles, Government is no longer By the People or for the People

Posted: July 10, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
2

Why Government is no longer

By the People or for the People

 

 

The blog you are hopefully about to read is inspired by a man whose articles and blogs are a favorite of mine. His writings mirror my own thoughts, but he has a much more educated background to draw from, so I am going to encapsulate several articles he wrote, culling the thoughts I wish to convey. His name is Robert Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century.

 

Before January 2009, the filibuster was used only for measures and nominations on which the minority party in the Senate had their strongest objections. Since then, Senate Republicans have filibustered almost everything, betting that voters will blame Democrats for the dysfunction in Congress as much as they blame the GOP. So far the bet is paying off because the press has failed to call out the GOP – which is now preventing votes on three D.C. Circuit Court nominees, the Labor Department and the EPA, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and the National Labor Relations Board. The GOP has blocked all labor board nominees. They have also violated hundreds of years of Senate precedent by filibustering the nomination of a Cabinet secretary, Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, and using the filibuster to delay John Brennan’s nomination as CIA Director. I am not saying that all of these nominations and measures should not have been challenged, but when almost everything is held up stagnating the congress and it’s ability to perform, then I am saying we must look to the source. This congress has done less work than any in history. I am also not laying all the blame for the lack of product on the GOP, I am after all a Republican. But the entrenched GOP is not looking after my interest, or yours right now, and we need to see the truth of this, as it is as plain as the giant locust that just smashed into your windshield!

 

What happened to the Republican senators, such as Mark Hatfield of Oregon and Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, who were willing to compromise, and who cared more about preserving the institutions of government than getting their way? Even Orren Hatch and John McCain in those days were more concerned about the institutional integrity of the U.S. government than about any particular policy difference they may have had with the other side.  But the new breed – Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Sam Brownback, Jeff Sessions, David Vitter, to name a few – don’t give a rat’s ass about how or whether our government functions. In fact, they give every indication that they’d rather it didn’t. Economics, and much of public policy and political strategy, assume that people are motivated by self-interest, that the definition of acting rationally is to maximize what you want for yourself, and that other values – service, duty, allegiance to others, morality, and shared ideals – are either irrelevant or negligible

Ayn Rand, the philosophical guru of the modern Republican Party, popularized this view of human nature. In her world, selfishness is the only honest and justifiable motive. By looking out for Number One, we accomplish everything that’s necessary. Economist Milton Friedman extended the logic: The magic of the marketplace can be relied on to allocate resources to their highest and best uses. Anything “public” is suspect.

The titans of Wall Street and the CEOs of our major corporations have put this narrow principle into everyday practice. In their view, the aggregation of great wealth and maximization of profit is the only justifiable motive. Greed is good. Eight-figure compensation packages are their due. People are paid according to their economic worth.  This crimped perspective misses what’s most important. Shared values are the essence of a society. They fuel not only acts of valor, but they also motivate people to become teachers and social workers, police officers and soldiers, librarians and city councilors.

So why do our politician act as they do, because big banking, and entities of big business like the Koch brothers –have long been intent on blocking any legislation that does not benefit their deep pockets, at the expense of you and me. All politicians, but it is epidemic in Washington, pander to the people who have the influence and the cheddar to get them reelected and offer them high paying employment for doing next to nothing when their political careers have run their course.

One last example of to illustrate me point. Earlier this year the Republican-led House passed a bill pegging student-loan interest rates to the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, plus 2.5 percentage points. Republicans estimate this will bring in around $3.7 billion of extra revenue, which will help pay down the federal debt.
In other words, it’s a tax — and one that hits lower-income students and their families.

Meanwhile, a growing number of Republicans have signed a pledge – sponsored by the multi-billionaire Koch brothers — to oppose any climate-change legislation that might raise government revenues by taxing polluters. It is called the No Climate Tax Pledge.

Why are Republicans willing to impose a tax on students and not on polluters? Don’t look for high principle. Big private banks stand to make a bundle on student loans if rates on government loans are raised. They have thrown their money at both parties but been particularly generous to the GOP. Meanwhile, the Koch brothers, again – whose companies are among America’s 20 worst air-polluters –have long been intent on blocking a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. And they, too, have been donating generously to Republicans to do their bidding.

We should be taxing polluters and not taxing students. The GOP has it backwards because its patrons want it that way. Remember this is being said by a long time Republican, but we need to see that our party needs to change, along with the Democrats, to return to a government by the people and for the people. I mean all of the people, not 1% of the people, who just maybe will share to a lesser degree with a lucky 10% of the people.

The following paragraph is the most important statement I will be making, so pay attention. The modern GOP is based on an unlikely coalition of wealthy business executives, small business owners, and struggling whites. Its durability depends on the latter two categories believing that the economic stresses they’ve experienced for decades have a lot to do with the government taking their money and giving it to the poor, who are disproportionately black and Latino. The real reason why small business owners and struggling whites haven’t done better is the same reason most of the rest of America hasn’t done better: Although the output of Americans has continued to rise, almost all the gains have gone to the very top. If we were still doing things the way we did four decades ago a typical household’s income rose in tandem with output. But since the late 1970s, as we allowed big business, wall street, and banking to slowly weaken unions and lower taxes on corporate America, allowed out-sourcing of our wealth so they would not have to pay taxes in America, which slowly caused most Americans’ incomes to flatten. Had the real median household income continued to keep pace with economic growth it would now average $92,000 instead of $50,000.

I know my views do not make me popular with some of my dearest friends, but I will always keep you close to my heart, while still trying to convince you to see what I think is so obvious. If I did not, I feel that not only would I be letting myself down, but you as well. So I have to keep on trying. We need to get rid of the political parties as they are now. They do not work, just look at the mess we are in for evidence. I have written about that subject before so will not grind on you about that today. I hope, if nothing else, I have gotten at least one person thinking with a little more of an open mind. No one is trying to become the King of America or any other such claptrap. If we want things to be better, we have to not be lazy, and we have to be able to look at both sides of a problem, not make up slogans full of half truths and outright lies to convince ourselves that we are right, but debate with one outcome in mind, to make America work, for everyone, not just those you happen to agree with. Also, in closing, the people who can afford to influence you the most, or almost without exception your enemy, not your friend. So it all boils down to on simple fact, our politicians no longer represent you and me, but the 1%, or maybe the 10%, but that still leaves 90% of us hanging in the proverbial breeze! We now work harder, longer, for less money than most of our European neighbors, a far cry from just 40 years ago, and getting increasingly worse year by year.

 

The Love Chronicles, A Political Conversation

Posted: May 3, 2013 in News and politics
Tags: , , , , ,
1

A Political Facebook Conversation

I was participating in a conversation that was inspired by a post on Facebook by my best friend. It immediately attracted several of my acquaintances in a spirited conversation about our American political system, it’s pitfalls and several different and sometimes opposing views on how we should effect change.  Usually a point or two have been made in these types of posts before they stray off into he says she says limbo. In this case it did not and I think some valid points were made. I am going to try and see if I can give you, the reader, and an accurate synopsis of this conversation. It will be a little wordy, and sometimes repetitive, but in order to make sense of the different points being put forward I may have no choice. I will try to make an effort to keep it as concise and to the point as I can.  It started out with the following post making the statement as follows by the person, my friend, who will be called the Author for purposes of identification.

“I have been curious lately concerning how low the ratings of our Politicians in Washington are, and yet we keep voting them in. I have come to the conclusion that there are two reasons. The first is that the Democratic and Republican Parties have become so powerful that they prevent other candidates from entering the race. The second is that our current Political System is so corrupt that we have became inured to the to failings, and just accept it as business as usual. Both reasons are sad to me because the answer is so simple; we use the vote to change the entire process.”

“We were founded as a Republic because our Founding Fathers believed a Democracy would result in a Mob Rule. A Republic and a Democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a Republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a Democracy the sovereignty is the group. Sadly, our Republic seems to be dead, and Mob Rule in its’ most unruly form as business as usual in our Nation’s Capital. All that is important to our Politicians is that their particular Mob rules over the other Mob, and the rights of its’ supposedly sovereign citizens, us, are left in the wayside.”

“On a side note, the Constitution seems to be forgotten by all. It is commonplace for our politicians as well as our citizens to forget the bill of rights as our emotions rule over our rights. At one time The Federal Government was limited by the Constitution, and the rights of the States were paramount in the recognition that we embrace our differences as well as our individual sovereign rights. As per the Constitution, all rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution are granted to the States.”

“It is also a fact that I as an individual can provide for myself much better than any political body. I am proudly registered as a Constitutionalist rather than a Republican or a Democrat! Just saying…..”

This statement is what started a long debate. The Author of the original post was asked if we are to use the vote to vote out incumbents or to impress upon our government bodies what it is we demand they do, why then do we still need and use the Electoral College.

The Author responded with, “If you read the Constitution, the Electoral College has morphed into something controlled by the Political Parties. As stated in the Constitution, all States are given an equal single vote in the election of the President. Also, the President is supposedly NOT to be of a Political Party (this last statement is worded poorly, sorry) As it stands right now, States like Idaho do not have a say in the election of the President. The only reason I can see as to why our State Legislature allow this is that they accept the limitations in order for the power to be in the hands of the Political Parties. I recommend reading “The Evolution and Destruction of the Electoral College” by Gary and Carolyn Alder. It is not too long, and easy reading. It is an eye opener….. Oh, and John, in reading it, I also discovered that as you my belief that my thinking that the Electoral College was founded due to poor education and communication was in error. The actual reasoning is that it is a process in finding the best American Statesman to lead and represent our Country apart for the Political Process and the Political Parties.”

I responded to this with the following statement. “I ordered your book but the two links I am giving you have some good points and seem to be addressing the same issue. They do however, touch on scattered populations only connected by rail in major population centers, and that everyone, without the communication advantages of today would just vote for the favorite son, the local guy from each state. It also touches on how the original framers of the Electoral College believed in part, that political parties were evil entities and not the way to elect a president. Now that struck a cord. So in the original 13 states, I can see how this was not such a bad idea. As a matter of fact, probably a good one, as the only other solutions were to elect the president by the federal or state congresses, with the popular vote not considered because of the afore mentioned voting of each state for the favorite son not giving a president a mandate from the country to preside. Today this is not the case, as we are connected by an information highway, as convoluted as it may be.”

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

This second link has several headings, all about different aspects of how we vote and how the system handles it, but there is one on Electoral College. Several have insights that are worthy of our attention.”

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html

The Electoral College – Origin and History

www.uselectionatlas.org

The Author responded with the following. “Your links are close, very close, to my understanding of the Electoral College. However, originally, it was a NOMINATING process, not a voting process. However it always had the stipulation that if there were a clear majority during the nominating process, that individual would be President. The amendment changed the word nominating to voting. It was and still is a one vote per State process if there is not a clear majority. The process we are following with two candidates running chosen by the Political Parties is unconstitutional from both the original and existing Electoral College system. As I said earlier, the Electoral College system has “morphed” into what it is today; a system controlled by the Political Parties. Sadly, I have yet to see anyone stand up and yell foul from the States, which do not have a say in the election of a President. Again, the only reason I can think of for this is that the Political Parties do not want to give up their control of the Presidency.”

At this point some inappropriate comments were made, starting with me, which do not contribute to the timber of this conversation, so I will skip them. There were some queries made by other participants asking if in all this back and forth was anyone offering any solutions. Someone else commented that in all this information somewhere solutions were to be had, or at least the germination of thought processes should have started. In an attempt to answer the query I added the following. “Well, my solution would be to abolish all political parties, each candidate would campaign on his or her qualifications for the job, everyone would just vote their choice. We would still need primaries to narrow the field, then a general election, all done without party affiliation, The politicians at the state and federal level would have no allegiance to any party, or pressure from said entities, and would better vote their conscience and be able to work with anyone of like mind they wished. Then you shoot all lobbyists, problem solved!

Since I wrote the latter, I would like to add that what I imagined is that anyone could run for President, for example, but they would have to get a qualifying petition to get on the ballet. Then a convention would be convened, with only the two top vote getters attending out of all candidates that ran. The convention would be used for the candidates to announce their choice of a running mate, and allow that person to introduce himself and why he was chosen, so forth and so on. Then no advertisements would be allowed. Each candidate could have televised statements about what they have planned for the country and why they should be elected, I would not even like to see a debate, you know how those tend to go.

There were some various conversations, links shared, and opinions given about what had been said. Then a new voice entered the conversation. Now I happen to find that I agree with this gentlemen’s point of view, almost without reservation, so I just thought at this point this should be mentioned. He added the following.  “Gentlemen, the problem, in a nutshell, is money. Money controls both parties. Money is the grease that makes our political / election system run. We desperately need to remodel election financing. Our representatives in Washington D.C. spend at least a third of their time pandering to wealthy donors. A side note: a Republic is a form of Democracy, just as a Chevy is a form of car. They are not two entirely different things.” We will call this person Gentleman A, for further reference.

The original Author came back with, “So are you saying there is no hope, or that the remodel of campaign finances should come first? I agree that financing is an important part of how elections are run today, and, concerning that issue (and in my opinion), all campaigns should have either a cap, or that they need to be limited to free public announcements on all news media; basically a resume and invitation to debate public forums. I know, that last won’t work, but the cap might eventually have hope; after all they do it in sports, why not politics. What I AM hoping for is for a grass roots campaign that will start holding our elected officials accountable, and to actually follow the Constitution as it was intended as, “The Law Of The Land.” No way to know if it will work, but there seems to be a little interest, and a lot of discontent. We can either say we the people have no money so we can’t fight the system, or try to build a grass roots political movement. As people say, you need to vote to make your voice heard, but as it stands now, your vote is for one of two sides of the same coin, perpetuating the problems, not the solutions. Be it folly or not, I, for one, am unwilling to sit back and do nothing.”

I would like to note at this juncture that I firmly believe that a fair and low cap be set on campaigns, thus allowing a broader base of individuals to compete for office. No funds from those represented by any lobby, foreign governments, big business, or special interest groups. The only contributions should come from registered voters, period.

At this point two of the other participants asked pertinent questions about the Authors comments about a democracy and a republic and what the differences were? The Author responded thusly, “My main thoughts concerning Republic vs. Democracy, is that in a Republic the individual has more importance than he/she does in a Democracy. The United States was formed as a Republic so the individual can become the best he/she can be. In a Democracy, the individual has no importance other than part of the group. What has made the US great in the past was that the individual could achieve greatness on his/her own terms. Think about why freedom means so much to us. Freedom to voice our opinion, freedom to own our piece of the pie, freedom to achieve the American dream! We are loosing that freedom as our elected officials “socialize” America. Think of Obama Care where we as Individuals are forced to buy into the system being administered to the mob. We no longer will have the ability to make our own choice concerning medical care. You can see that many Government programs are being forced on us for our own supposed good. The final outcome of that is that we are being forced to accept mediocrity instead of being allowed to achieve greatness. I wish I could actually express what is in my heart and soul concerning this idea. I worry that my children will never have the chance to have the same freedoms that I have enjoyed.”

Gentleman A responded with, “Sir, I’m not sure I understand your definitions of “democracy” and “republic.” It almost sounds as if you are coming up with your own definitions. It may be that you are thinking of the difference in the same way the founding fathers did, which has changed in modern usage, but the terms democracy and republic have changed their meaning today. Under the definition that modern people in the world use, there are 5 basic forms of democracy:

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives.

Representative democracy involves the election of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.

Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by representatives as opposed to a ‘presidential rule’ wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.

A constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.

Hybrid democracy: Some modern democracies that are predominately representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political action that are directly democratic. These democracies, which combine elements of representative democracy and direct democracy, are termed hybrid democracies or semi-direct democracies. Examples include Switzerland and some U.S. states, where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives.

Democracy Variants:

Republic: In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.

The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights. Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, was that the government be “bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend.”

Ok, you might want to let that sink in and maybe read that twice. I took and completed a course in college covering local, state, and the federal government and got an “A”, but have to admit that I now wish I had more formal education in these areas. Gentleman A continued, “The rights of the individual is always in conflict with the rights of the group. We have always lived in a country in which there is a compromise between pure, selfish, free market Capitalism, and everybody pulling together, which you might call Socialism at some point. Even civic clubs have to have rules that deny the rights of individuals to do whatever the hell they want to. That’s a loss of freedom, but there is always, ALWAYS a balance between freedom for the individual and the good of the group as a whole. Where that line is drawn is where people disagree.”

The Author answered, “I admit to being both a Constitutionalist, and an advocate of Austrian Economics. My arguments tend to follow along those lines. And many (some?), including me feel that our unalienable rights are being bent beyond recognition. Our Government since the early 20th Century has became increasing top down. Some of the histories of Presidents I have studied, trying to determine if the spending frenzies instituted by both President Hoover, and President Roosevelt (FDR) actually ended the Great Depression, point out that our leaders at the beginning of the 20th Century felt that a controlled society would lead to a better life for all. It was shortly after the time that Thoreau and Emerson postulated their Utopian ideals, which may have also contributed (I’m reaching here) to the birth of communism (notice the small case “c”, (I’m sure you know why that is important). Back on subject, read Ronald Thompson posts concerning a ruling class existing in America today. I found that very interesting and apropos to our discussion.”

Gentleman A responded with the following, “The Author stated, “What I AM hoping for is for a grass roots campaign that will start holding our elected officials accountable,…” There are numerous grass roots movements dedicated to improving our political system. And yes, I do very much think getting the money out of politics is one of the initial keys to reform. The primary motivation of politicians is to stay in office/power – to stay in office they need money – to get money, they have to please those who can afford to give it to them.”

The Author responded, “Granted, the article of the link provided is from a Conservative Publication, so you might want to dismiss it as propaganda. That point given, I looked for statistics, and found many all showing an increase over time. However, none of them discuss the reasons; whether the rise is due to unemployment, or due to the unwillingness to work based on various individual motivations. It is not an easy question to answer. Nevertheless here is an interesting article.” http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/25/america-on-welfare

Gentleman A response was as follows, “I don’t have a lot of time or energy to research this, but what I did find leads me to believe, yes more people are becoming dependent on government assistance. But most of that increase has happened since the economic crash of 2008.

Enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has surged 70% since 2008, reaching a record 47.8 million Americans in December 2012. That means 15% of the country receives the benefits, nearly double the rate as in 1975. That would be about 9% on SNAP in 2008 plus 70% (6.3) = 15.3%. So most of the increase in SNAP participants “can all be explained by a slow job market, more pockets of poverty and a push from states to get residents to apply for SNAP, reports The Wall Street Journal.” “An official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture told The Journal he expects the rolls to shrink as the economy continues to improve.”

More people on assistance, while at the same time the wealthiest of Americans have become richer and the income gap is the widest in modern history, can be interpreted as the deck being stacked in favor of those at the top – the big banks, the corporations that profit from shipping jobs out of the country, etc.”

The author responded to this by adding, “The one thing in the article that jumped out at me was that the Government Agencies running the programs actually were encouraging people to apply for their programs. This, of course, is typical of Government ran Agencies. Spend more money, so your budget increases, one of the things that is “wrong” with our current system is that increased Government Spending increases inflation. What many don’t realize is that inflation is basically a “hidden” tax. First it reduces the impact of the debt by allowing the Government to pay back it’s loans with cheaper dollars than it originally borrowed, and it wasn’t for still running a deficit, the ratio of debt to GNP would reduce accordingly. The second and most horrendous problem with inflation is that it is passed down the line with the bottom level of consumers, us, picking up the entire tab. This is one of the major causes of the rich getting richer, and the poor, poorer. I hesitate about saying it is the only cause, because of the financial greed of people manipulating money as a commodity in order to create wealth out of the thin air. I wish there was a way of taxing the generation of wealth by manipulation without also taxing companies trying to build wealth by actually making a tangible product. If there was, I would be 100% behind taxing that wealth at astronomical levels.”

So with that I will conclude. I did leave out several well-written and cogent passages by other participants, but I had to basically concentrate on the conversation between the Author and Gentleman A in order for this not to turn into a novel. Of course you did also have to put up with blather by me, but hey, it is my blog after all! I hope this is read by all of my readers, it is a little long, but I think you should know what it is your contemporaries are discussing. If any of you have comments, there is a place provided on my blog. If you want to email me, feel free!

The Love Chronicles, Foreign Students Afraid

Posted: April 17, 2013 in News and politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Foreign Students Afraid

John Kerry recently stated that foreign students are afraid of gun violence in the U.S. and so are coming in fewer numbers as a result. The article I read was not very good at nailing down any point he was trying to make, but as he is aligned with president Obama, you can predict with a certain amount of certainty that he is talking about the need for gun legislation. Legislation aimed at curtailing certain firearms and their accessories. I will examine a couple of subjects today. One will be about my opinions on gun control, and secondly, the real reason behind fears of foreign students who are considering an American education, which has several parts, the least of which is the actual guns themselves!

First I firmly believe that the second amendment does in actuality guaranty our right to possess and bear arms. I think that all states should adopt gun regulations similar to Idaho. In Idaho, for example, if you apply for a license to carry, you are guaranteed the permit within 90 days. Now this is of course if you are not a convicted felon. You do not have to prove special circumstances however. Even so, as long as you carry in the open, and adhere to local statutes, such as weapons not being loaded inside city limits, you do not have to even have a permit.

I also do believe however, that anyone buying a gun, or wanting a carry permit, should be required to go through a mandated background check for criminal record, mental status, and the like. Sure, career criminals will find ways to acquire guns and bypass this process, but that does not mean it is not invaluable in keeping documented loonies from getting a gun. It has been argued that most guns used in mass killings have been purchased legally. I am sure that is true, but why all the fuss over registering your weapon or submitting to background checks. I have relatives that will tell you that is the first step to the government taking them away from you. I do not believe this is even possible. Say they show up, you tell them you were crossing a stream up in Hell Bent for Leather country, lost your footing and had to ditch all you weapons in order not to drown! There is squat they can do as long as you use your brain housing group for more than a hat rack! There are so many weapons all ready out there, that the gov’t getting them is not going to happen.

Second argument is so we can fight back if the gov’t goes south and we need to protect ourselves. Well, if the gov’t ever went so far over the deep end that we need to start an armed conflict, I don’t care how many assault weapons, fully automatic machine guns and the like you own, you will lose against a drone attack, or maybe a heavily armed F18, or even a few missiles coming your way, and you haven’t even had an enemy you could shoot at yet, and your just an ash heap.  We do need to keep our right to bear and own arms, but to register and be checked out to see who and what we might be in relation to our mental health or our criminal record before we can buy, no problem with that. I believe every citizen should have the right to carry, and my next section will tell you why.

The second point I would like to make is the real reason that not only foreigners but also we at home fear violence in our country. It has nothing to do with our gun ownership or our rights under the 2nd amendment. Gun violence has gone up in countries like the United Kingdom after it deprived the public of most of their gun rights. The criminal element had no problems getting them however, thus the populace was made even more vulnerable, and there are statistics to back that up! The real reason is that gangs in America are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence. They are actively engaged in prostitution, slavery, illegal gun trade, drugs, illegal gambling, and are even organized across state lines and borders! They should be classified as terrorists and hunted and prosecuted as such. This is the prime reason we are not safe in America. If I, a white man, was to walk the streets, day or night, but especially at night in certain areas of Compton or Watts, my chances of being alive would not be good. At the very least robbed and or hospitalized.  This is not politically correct, but it is accurate. I have personally been in these areas and barely survived. I was lost at the time; I was not looking for trouble. I will not admit to anything in this blog, but there was a reason I escaped unharmed, and damn lucky I was armed with that reason.

Now I used the examples I did because I had personal experiences there. But I am not picking on any particular race. Gangs exist in all ethnicities. Yep whites are an ethnicity and not exempt. Some of the most heinous and worst examples of gang violence and organized crime come from white gangs. So again I reiterate, gangs should classified as terrorists and pursued as such.

Just one last thought, who and why did gangs become so prevalent. The reasons are as diverse as the gangs themselves. But one overriding reason does come to mind, the American public! Yes, you, me, everyone! If you look back to the not so distant past, where the gangs are most prevalent there used to be Spartan neighborhoods, the inhabitants wanting nothing more than education and career opportunities. But affluent America did not want certain segments to live in their neighborhoods, or go to their schools, or even work alongside them. So gradually neighborhoods of people began to emerge that had disillusioned populations about any chance or change. This in turn caused an increase in alcohol and drug use as an escape from the depression this caused. Naturally crime became a way to earn a living when nothing else seemed available except as an underpaid menial laborer or other subservient job.  These gangs became more sophisticated, more violent, and more daring as they discovered that a lot of what they did would be overlooked as long as they had the sense to stay out of affluent neighborhoods except to supply them with the fruits of their endeavor, drugs and prostitution being the most prevalent. As I stated gangs are as varied as the makeup of the American citizens themselves. Some gangs actually immigrated here, already fully functioning and organized from abroad! Some are more vicious than our homegrown versions and some are as well organized as any well-oiled business organization. This is why they have to be recognized as terrorist organizations and the federal govt. needs to back up local law enforcement in cleaning up these terrorist cells.  I think we as a nation are starting to understand that racial diversity is our strength, and not a reason to segregate. We still have a long way to go, regardless of what laws are on the books; we still have rampant racial prejudice in this country that we need to deal with. All of it tied together with a poorly administered welfare system. Education, real education of every child is the answer. Just like in Iran and Afghanistan, the biggest reason for the attitudes and abiding terrorism is the uneducated masses. Well it is no different here. Until we stop using our schools as a way to house students during the day instead of educating them, we will never get ahead of this problem.  Schools have to be our biggest weapon against welfare, gangs, unemployment, and poverty. Education cannot be the first thing you cut because big business told you not to bother them or no contribution will be forthcoming and you will not be reelected.  Education, education, education, in case you didn’t get it, education not gun control! We need to get our priorities straight, and forthwith, if I might use a Middle English terminology.

The Love Chronicles, The Facts

Posted: February 23, 2013 in News and politics
Tags: , , , , , ,
2

The Facts?

Bloomberg News published a couple of new surveys just yesterday, at least it was when I started writing this. And I quote;

A 62% majority believe the deficit is getting bigger, 28% believe the deficit is staying roughly the same, and only 6% believe the deficit is shrinking.

In other words, in the midst of a major national debate over America’s finances, 90% of Americans are wrong about the one basic detail that probably matters most in the conversation, while only 6% — 6%! — are correct.

For the record, last year, over President Obama’s first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.

And yet, 90% of Americans don’t believe the demonstrable, incontrovertible, entirely objective truth. It’s worth pondering why.

End Quote.

 

Now before you just automatically disagree and start the blame game and the name calling, I checked several different sites, tried to get polling from different sources, from the left and the right, and I believe this poll is close, if not 100% accurate. Also I checked several different sites trying to see if the deficit is actually shrinking, I could find no one who could say otherwise. I did find some differing on how they calculated the deficit, which brings me back to my premise that figures don’t lie but liars can figure!  However they all agree that the deficit is coming down at a rate that has increased in the last four years. Now, what we need to decide, did the people they pole understand the question. I say they did not. Now I do believe that the deficit reduction is increasing under President Obama. I am not saying it is his genius that is behind it. We are winding down some pretty expensive wars and other factors which can’t help but help in deficit reduction. But let us now consider whether any of the opinion polls are accurate when you ask about the deficit. I say no, hell no, as a matter of fact! Most people I talk to automatically assume when I talk about the deficit that I am talking about the national debt. They do not understand the difference. So when you ask them whether they think the deficit is shrinking, and it is, but they answer no, they are not wrong. Why? Because they think they are giving an answer about the national debt, which is not shrinking. We have been increasing the national debt by about two trillion dollars the last few years. So the answer they think we are asking is in fact, correct. So if pollsters do not explain the difference between the deficit and the debt, the poll will be totally skewed and incorrect. So lets review what the difference actually is;

The deficit is when, for example, when we as a nation spend 800 billion more to operate than revenue we accumulate in a designated year, than your deficit is 800 billion. But the national debt is a culmination of all the years we have been in deficit, thus for example, our debt was about 16 trillion last year, so if the deficit had been 800 billion than our total debt would be 16 trillion 800 billion plus or minus a nest egg or two. So yes the deficit is decreasing, but as long as it is a deficit our debt continues to climb. So what we have to do is not spend more than available revenue, plus a profit to even start to lower the debt. Got a few hundred years? This is just the cherry on top of the huge cake everyone is trying to slice up.

When you tackle the deficit, and eventually the debt, you have to make some pretty hard decisions. First you have to use common sense, and look at things with a level head and sharp eye.

I am going to start with a simple tax reform. Did I say simple, well I should amend that to say simple in theory, but in reality, with the current climate of the political party system and its ever-present lobbyists employed by big business and banking, well it is almost an insurmountable process. I maintain that every American who gets paid, regardless of how that pay is distributed to him, pays the exact same percent of that pay with no loopholes, no deferments, and no excuses! However when you talk about how companies and corporations will pay their share, this is when it gets difficult. When companies go public and sell stock for profit and or borrow money on how much their stock is worth, well this can become a very complex business again, exactly what we were trying to avoid. So we would have to change how big business operates, and since big business controls politics, in my humble opinion, we are looking at a huge bump in the road to such tax reform. I believe if you could either go to a flat percent, or a flat fee for every person and get rid of the stock scheme altogether, then companies would have to revert to concentrating on making a product that is superior to the competition in order to make the company successful! Instead they manipulate profit and stocks with the bottom line being the cheapest product with quick and fast profits for stockholders and company officers that collect huge bonuses for making it happen. So, just to prove I am not a know it all, I do not have the experience to lay out a total plan that envelopes all aspects of wage earner to corporate giant and those it is beholden to. I am stating that we need to do it different. But in saying that I realize that big business is vital to the health of our nation. So it has to have a prize at the end for an entrepreneur to strive for, a business to aspire to, a conglomerate to want to be, here in America, and not overseas where labor and taxes are less expensive. The main reason I think this is something we need to strive for is simple however. All you have to do is count heads to know how much average Joe is going to kick into the coffers. Companies would know exactly how much of their profit is going to go to taxes, which allows them to know the bottom line, exactly. This will be hard on lawyers, who by the way absolutely hate this idea. So look at it this way, they are sharks and we are, well lets face it shark food in that we feed their greed. So who cares if they are removed from the equation! I discussed this with a friend who in the past has sent me books and articles dealing with economics. He likes the idea, but pointed out how hard it would be to buck the existing system I just described. I wish I had answers instead of just a wish, but I am hoping to get people to start thinking about how we got into this mess, more than once, and worse every time. It has always been greed by corporations and banks, making the fast buck instead of the wise one. Getting theirs and getting out! So we have to invent a better way, a more stable way. I don’t believe anything I have proposed is impossible, or that it impedes competition or entrepreneurial endeavor. Plus it is you and I, every time, that winds up paying for what a few manipulate into being. We pay for it as services are lost to us. We pay for it in lost education for our young; we pay for it in lives when the services we lost are police, fire, and emergency response teams.  Most importantly for this discussion, we pay for it in taxes that are not used wisely, but wind up building a bridge to nowhere, studying the sex life of theTsetse fly, or bucking up foreign powers that would like to see us dead if the truth be known.

So the deficit needs not only to continue to decline, it must cease to exist before we can even start to pay down the trillions we owe. That debt is also costing us plenty in interest. I tried to find out just how much, but nobody seems to be talking. I am sure of one thing, Japan, China, and the rest are not just giving money to us without expecting a payday with huge profits. It will hit us right in the gut sooner than later, I am afraid.

I would love to mention other important things that affect how all this is going to work. Things like Social Security, Medicare, and education. I know my audience however and know I tend to go on and on and you have read further than I have a right to expect. But one last thing, something I cannot let go of, social security should not be listed as an entitlement. It pays for itself. It was robbed time and time again to pay for the shortcomings of those in office. Now they don’t want to even admit there is an excess of 2.7 trillion dollars in non-marketable securities that have come due and are owed to the social security fund. Baby Boomers are not the cause. They are drawing at a higher percentage, sure, but they also paid in at the same higher percent all along. Not only do you and I pay every time we get a paycheck, but your employer has to also pay into it for you every time he does payroll. So it pisses me off that they expect me to eat dog food so they don’t have to pay back what they took while I paid in since I was twelve and so did every employer I ever worked for. I don’t have an answer for the other programs, but if the politicians were forbidden to touch the fund, it does not affect the deficit or the debt. It just means we are broke, and who better to pay for it then those of us who cannot afford high priced lobbyists or power brokers to speak for us. So you have to use your pen, your computer, your vote, and your voice, and you need to start yesterday, as it is fast becoming to late!

The Love Chronicles, The Gun Ban Rhetoric

Posted: January 26, 2013 in News and politics
Tags: , , , ,
3

The Gun Ban Rhetoric

I am really tired of seeing all the bunk about President Obama and his supposed ban on all guns through some kind of end run using the United Nations. First off, I am a gun owner and do not ever intend to give up my right to have and own them. I think every citizen should be allowed to carry, laws similar to Idaho are appropriate. If you do not have a criminal record, by law in Idaho, your license to carry must be in your hands no later than, I believe 60 days after application. It has been a few months since I looked it up so It might be 90, but one or the other. My point is, the state believes in every citizen’s right to own and carry a firearm as long as they are law-abiding citizens and I believe in this premise also. These chain emails and postings also claim he is planning to bypass congress to pass laws banning all guns. Not true, could not do so even if he wanted, which he does not. He has to have a majority of both houses and there is no such majority, nor will there ever be in the foreseeable future.
The President actually has said that he believes in the 2nd Amendment and that it does guaranty the right to bear arms. The next question and answer I pasted from FactCheck.com.

Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty?
A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons. It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons, or that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Back in April, when discussing the upcoming conference, Thomas Countryman, assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferations, said that the U.S. wouldn’t support a treaty that covers the domestic transfer of weapons, or goes against the Second Amendment:

This is what he said: Let me be clear once more on the question of domestic transfers. The Treaty must not touch on domestic transfers or ownership. The United States has received widespread international support for this oft-repeated position that only international transfers would come within the purview of this Treaty. We will not support outcomes that would in any way infringe on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have received, in fact, letters from United States Senators opposing any Treaty restricting the Second Amendment. This has been the position of the Executive Branch since 2009, and it remains our position today. We will not support or agree to any Treaty that would do so. We believe that the international community can draft a Treaty on international arms transfers that would both increase international security and still protect sovereign rights of nations. That is the Treaty that the United States will pursue in July and for which we expect there will be widespread support. There is not even a framework in place for this treaty; it is only in the discussion stage at this point.

What President Obama has said is that he does not believe we need a machine gun, assault rifle, or banana style magazines to defend our homes or hunt down a deer. So we need to quit quoting all of these crackpot chain emails and posting inaccurate posters and statements of supposed fact based on a bucket full of bullshit. It demeans us and weakens us for the real fight. If you think you should be able to have full auto, or a huge magazine of ammo that basically explodes into dozens of pieces and tears up flesh, then you need to educate yourself on what has actually been said so that when you start your argument for what it is you really want, you don’t sound like some uneducated hayseed who has no real idea of what it is you are fighting for. So if you really care about gun control and want to affect change, quit posting crap and stay on point. If you are just looking to bash the President and you don’t really care about the facts, then this article is not for you and I would not waste my time trying to have a discussion. You’re the same group of citizens who actually fired a science teacher in my hometown back in the day for teaching that the world was round. Yep, a fact, check it out. Oh wait; facts are not important to you. Well I hope we can win our fight to have the weapons of our choice. I myself can defend my home just fine. I do not need assault weapons to do it. I am not so gullible as to believe that I can ward off government forces if I decide to revolt when they can blow my ass away from distances a half a continent away with ease. But I respect your right to fight for them, just fight for them with the facts and do not diminish your chances by spewing lies or repeating them as the truth! I know this will not make me popular, but I am telling you truths. If the truth makes me unpopular, than I can bear it, my real friends will at least understand the need to argue from strength with the real facts. If you do not agree with the President, by all means resist him with your vote, writings, phone calls and emails, but calling him a terrorist, insisting his religion is other than it is, that he is an illegal is ludicrous, and makes those of us who bash him in this matter ludicrous as well! And maybe, just maybe, hiding a more sinister reason for this behavior!

The Love Chronicles, Saving a Democracy

Posted: May 15, 2012 in News and politics
Tags: , ,
0

Saving Our Democracy

By

John E. Love

Are we any better now than we were back in the 60’s. Well, with the Vietnam war, civil rights, and the make love not war hippy movement, the youth of the day certainly did not think so. That youth is now the baby boomer generation and includes most of the people I hold dear and call friends.

A famous philosopher once complained that young people had lost the respect for their elders they once had, that parents had lost control and were not maintaining family cohesion so that juvenile delinquency had run amok. He also complained that the government had become so corrupt that it did nothing to serve the people but only served itself, that society as he knew it was on a downward spiral and doomed to fail, his name was Socrates. So with this in mind, I have always looked at doom prophets with a certain tongue in cheek attitude. I still do, but with certain reservations.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

▪   From bondage to spiritual faith;

▪   From spiritual faith to great courage;

▪   From courage to liberty;

▪   From liberty to abundance;

▪   From abundance to complacency;

▪   From complacency to apathy;

▪   From apathy to dependence;

▪   From dependence back into bondage.

I admit that we have, since our own revolution, followed this pattern, which is commented on by several different authors in slightly different ways, but always with the same general recipe and outcome. I agree that we have, like all great nations gone down this path, but I do not believe we are preordained to fail.  I think as a great Nation that happens to be a Democracy gives us to hope for a better outcome. I know that Democracies in the past have followed this 200 year path to a loss of power and influence, I also know that seems to be where we are heading, but if we start using that one little right we still have, the vote, we can reverse the trend!

We have to, in huge numbers let our elected officials know what we want, and what we are prepared to do to get it. First we must get rid of the Electoral College. On the average, currently,  90 million voters cast ballots for the Presidential candidates, but then 538 citizens, the electors of the Electoral College cast their votes and elect our President, regardless of how we voted. This may have been a necessity when most of the population was illiterate and cut off from communication with their government. That is no longer the case, and it is high time to rid ourselves of this outdated and demeaning law. Plus if our vote is to be used as a threat to our representatives to actually do as we ask, this is a necessary step.

We then need to come to a decision about what we want. I know religion, sexual orientation, same sex marriage and a women’s right to choose, to name but a few, are by far too contested for us to be able to come together as one. But we can agree on some basic principles that we must insist on. First and foremost, outlaw the lobbying of any politician at any level of government. Disallow campaign money to be donated by any company, corporation, country, or group. Allow only individual donations by a private citizen, limited to say $1,000.00 per campaign per person to keep the rich from controlling an election. Sure, a hell of a lot less money than is spent now, but if everyone has the same monetary base, they will find ways to make their point, and to be succinct while doing it! No personal monies from the candidates themselves! You would see a very different politician as a result.

Finally, now that we are back in control of the vote, we need to use it to vote out incumbents who still do not get it, and keep on doing so until they do! We, as a nation of voters need to email, write, and call our representatives telling them what it is we do want.  Then insist, with our vote, that we get it.  That will not solve all our problems, but at least we will be responsible for where we go as a nation.  We can insist that pork barrel additions to bills be eliminated. Sure, our taxes need to be used in emergencies to help those ravaged be floods, earthquakes, and other disasters.  Health Care and Social security will still be hot spots, but if you can keep politicians from robbing these funds and leave them alone, at least Social Security would be just fine, even have a nice surplus!

In closing, politicians who actually must answer to their constituents, who cannot buy an election, who come from a broader slice of the American makeup because of how elections are held, will bring a whole different climate to state and federal politics. I believe if we can make this happen, we can break the 200 year cycle nations have been doomed to follow and be an even greater nation than we have ever been! I have some ideas about abolishing political parties altogether and let politicians run on what they stand for, but that is blog of another color and for another day!

The Love Chronicles, WWIII

Posted: January 13, 2012 in News and politics
Tags: , , ,
3

(more…)

Congressional Retirement Plans

Posted: December 1, 2011 in News and politics
Tags: ,
1

The Love Chronicles

By John Love

This is an article written by Martin Frost, a former congressman and contributor to Fox News, an organization who has no problem slanting the news or just not reporting on what they do not like, but jumping all over another candidate or politician for exactly the same thing. I have however researched this info before, found it to be true and am using this article because it explains the House and Senate retirement packages very well and how they work.

Members of Congress (House and Senate) take part in a defined benefit plan (once retired, they receive a specific monthly benefit based on years of service). They do not retire at full pay and their pension is a contributory plan — that is, they have a significant amount deducted from their salary each month to help defray the cost of their pension benefits. This defined benefit plan is comparable to pensions offered by big companies like General Motors except that in some instances the companies underwrite the entire cost of the plan.

Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below).

Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary.

In addition, all members, starting in 1983, now pay into Social Security and receive Social Security benefits. For members under the old CSRS plan, their Social Security benefits are offset (subtracted from) their pension. For members under the new FERS plan, there is no Social Security offset. It is not unusual for retired workers to receive a pension from their private employer and to also receive Social Security. Somehow, many people think members of Congress should not be eligible for the exact same treatment that employees in private industry receive.

Members under the old more generous CSRS plan are eligible for participation in a separate 401(k) plan under which a certain amount is deducted from their salary each month and is not taxed until after they retire. This 401(k) deduction is not matched by their employer, the federal government. Members under the new FERS plan also can take part in a 401(k) plan and they receive a partial match from their employer.

Generally, members are not eligible to receive their pension until age 60 and their pensions vest after five years of service.

I know this is a lot of information but don’t be afraid of being armed with the facts. The misconceptions that float around on the internet — retirement at full pay after one term and no payment into Social Security — are false and unfair to public servants who devote a significant amount of their lives to making this a better country.

Having said all this, I realize that some people will resent the fact that members of the House and Senate receive any pension at all. I can’t do anything for people who take this view.

I can, however, give you information about what is true and what is false. You can then at least make a rational judgment on whether or not you approve of the Congressional pension system. Improvements can be made. Convicted criminals like former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) should forfeit their pensions when they are convicted of felonies like taking a bribe.

Also, it is legitimate to question whether or not these pensions should be indexed for inflation each year. Many private pensions are not indexed though military pensions and Social Security are.

So there are several posts out there that want you to repost and join a movement for supporting a movement that would end with a new 28th Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States.”

End of the Martin Frost Statement 

I am one of those that believe that serving your country as a Senator or Representative is an honor and duty, not a career. Term limits should be enforced, keeping entrenched politicians from making it their life’s work. With that being said I am also one of those that think they should not receive any pension whatsoever, they should put in a set term, maybe a longer six year term but only one, and then return to the private sector where they will receive retirement and 401k plans from their employers just like the rest of us. I do think they need to receive a salary commensurate with the very important job they are asked to do. I think they should be given fair allowance to staff an office, but all Senators and Representatives should get the same amount of allowance. If, for example you are on a committee that is going to take more staff and more hours, a fair increase to the allowance can be made, but not in the amount of salary that the politician makes.  The paramount change I think most important, no politician should be allowed to have contact with any lobbyist for any reason. He/or she should not be allowed contributions by any companies, corporations, or countries, only individual voters. Lobbyists who have legitimate claims can take them to congress as a whole, just like everyone else. It should be made to be a considerable infraction of the law to lobby any politician for any reason, or for that politician to accept a job from any company he was not associated with before taking office if said politician was involved in any legislation that would directly or indirectly benefit said company from his/or her  vote. I also believe that each politician should be limited to how much he/or she can spend getting elected. Any surplus funds donated to a campaign will go into a fund that helps pay for office personnel or other costs of running the government in Washington. We now will have people in Washington who are not going to be worried about being re-elected, who are not beholden to anyone, so they should be able to vote intelligently instead of spending their entire career name calling and playing the blame game.

If we as voters want to be taken seriously, then we have to have serious reasons, backed up by fact, not fiction, or politicians will never take us seriously, and even worse neither will our constituents. Most requests claim that politicians can serve one term and get retirement at whatever their full wage came to. As is shown above this is not true. As I stated, I do not believe politicians should get any retirement from service as our representative to Washington, but we have to be careful to post facts not fiction or we become the fairy tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf!

Newer Entries