Stuff My Brain Says #87

"Who do you think you're kidding?!?"

Remember when Congress wanted then candidate Donald Trump to turn over his tax returns? Yeah. Fun times.

Now Congress is telling us that the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure spending bill will be paid for by making companies and the rich pay their fair share. You know, "The middle class won't be left holding the bag. The rich who haven't been paying their fair share will cover the bill." 

To quote Dana Carvey: "Isn't that special?"

(Side note: when Social Security was first "sold" to us, we were told only the very rich would pay for it. Have you looked at your paystub to see the lump that goes out for Social Security? Welcome to the very rich ... )

Did you see the commonality of the above two statements? Yup. Congress. Now, here's the funny part: Congress is the very entity that created the tax code that ALLOWS people like Donald Trump to not pay taxes.

IF those "evil" rich aren't paying their "fair share", wouldn't there be charges brought up against them? Ask folks like Wesley Snipes, Nicolas Cage, and Willie Nelson about what happens when you don't pay your "fair share". Sounds to me that if a rich person or company isn't already paying their taxes, they would have been caught by now.

Maybe Congress has been watching too many Tim Misny commercials. Of course, the reason he can "make them pay" is that they've done something illegal. You'd think since Congress is made up of a bunch of lawyers, they'd already know that.

Would somebody please ask those folks who've been in D.C. seemingly forever what changes to the tax code they plan on making? After all, one of the reasons that a lot of these companies aren't "paying", is that a POLITICIAN promises tax cuts/abatements for opening a business in their district. NOW they are crying that these very companies actually embrace those cuts and abatements?

Even if Congress were able to get more money from the rich and businesses, they would simply outspend it. It's been their modus operandi for decades. They have an addiction: other people's money.

Maybe Congress should live by this simple financial code: If your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall.

© Emittravel 2021

It Ain't Illegal If I Don't Get Caught

What do the following words have in common:

Gay
Terrible
Ejaculate
Bad
Sick
Congressman

Each of the above originally had a different meaning/usage than it does today. "Gay" used to mean "happy", "terrible" used to mean "awe inspiring", and "ejaculate" meant "exclaim". You get the idea.

The title of this post is an expression that basically means, "if a law is not enforced, it isn't a law". Ever catch someone go through a red traffic light and don't get stopped? Did they break the law? Sure they did. But, since it wasn't enforced, it "really" wasn't broken was it? Or, if you read my last post, "Quit Playing With Yourself and Drive!!", driving while on your cellphone is not really illegal either - if it isn't enforced.

There is another level that I think needs addressed: If a law does not apply equally, it is not a law.

Every couple of years I read through the Federalist Papers. Not an exciting read, but worthwhile nonetheless. In Federalist LVII "The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many", I read the following:

"If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature, as well as on the People, the People will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty."

The argument was that if the Legislature were to make laws that did not apply to themselves, the people would not stand for it. Sorry to say that that turned out to be false.

There are many laws that Congress has passed that they have exempted themselves from. Here are a few:

"Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970" - this applies to "any person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees". Under the acts definitions, the term employer "does not include the United States" - which means Congress. Too bad if you get hurt on the job.

"Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" - this provides a statutory right of access to a wide range of government information to allow citizens to be informed of government affairs. The House and Senate stand by certain "privileges" that have roots in the Constitution, which allows them to not have to disclose certain things to the public.

"18 U.S. Code 208" - The principal financial conflict of interest law for Federal employees - prohibits officers and employees of the executive branch from taking any official action on something that would provide personal financial gain. This does NOT apply to any elected officials of the Federal Government - so Congress, the President, the Vice President, and Federal judges are exempt. Since Martha Stewart was not one of the above, she went to jail for insider trading.

(The above examples were pulled from https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm)

Reminds me of the bonehead from "Lethal Weapon II" shouting "Diplomatic immunity" whenever he broke the law.

Where am I going with all of this? According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

If you apply privileges of royalty onto an existing title, doesn't that equal the granting of a title of nobility?

Calling someone "Congressman" - with all of their privileges and exemptions - like "gay", "terrible", and "ejaculate" - no longer fits the original definition and should be held accountable.

©Emittravel 2019

Stuff My Brain Says #83

A law isn’t a law unless it is enforced.

No matter the topic -  gun control, taxes, even jaw walking - laws are completely meaningless if not enforced.

So, if you are mad about a nineteen year-old being able to purchase a firearm to use in a killing spree in a gun-free school zone, or whether or not President Trump paid his “fair share” of taxes, and you think the solution is more laws, look first at what laws are ALREADY on the books and are not enforced.

You’ll realize that we either need less and more effective laws, or increased enforcement of those that already exist.

Sometimes Congress does its best work when on vacation.

© Emittravel 2018

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #12

It's broke . . .

There was a lot of flack over Attorney General Jeff Sessions having to recuse himself from investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, including possible Russian interference, BECAUSE of a conflict in that he met with a Russian ambassador during the campaign.

Here's something: Why not have Congress folks recuse themselves from any function of their jobs that is also a conflict. For instance: Senator Paul Ryan is pushing legislation in an effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "ObamaCare"), yet he has received MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. There are items in the bill that remove penalties and provide tax breaks for those very industries. The "RyanCare" bill can be viewed as a response to those contributions. Contributions that in this case can be considered a BRIBE.

And he isn't the only one whose coffers have been padded by the very industries they are to regulate.

Remember during the 2016 Presidential Campaign when assertions of "influence peddling" (what we humble non-politicians refer to as, ahem, a BRIBE!) were directed at Hillary Clinton when she received donations to the Clinton Foundation from the very countries she was meeting with as Secretary of State?

Then we have people screaming for President Trump's tax records (since 2005's were so yesterday's news). Why not full financial disclosure of all of Congress, and a forced recusal when THEY have a conflict?

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2017

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #11

It's broke . . .

President Donald Trump came under a lot of pressure to separate himself from his businesses once he became President. The concern was that having control of his businesses would impact his decisions and the way he worked with foreign governments. You know, he would not make a decision that would negatively impact his businesses.

And separating himself is a good thing. But is it enough?

If having “civilian” enterprises are a negative for the President, shouldn’t the same be said for those in Congress? What about the Supreme Court? How about for anyone in public service? Why just the President?

In March of 2004, Martha Stewart was found guilty of what is commonly referred to as “insider trading”. (She was actually convicted of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart) Was she in the wrong? The courts surely thought so.

But why is “insider trading” considered illegal? According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security (stock), in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include 'tipping' such information, securities trading by the person 'tipped,' and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.” It is considered illegal because “insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets”. (See https://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm for more info)

When you own stock, you own a part of a company. The more stock you own, the more of the company you own. If you own a certain amount, you have “voting rights” of a company in their decision process.

If a member of Congress owns stock in a company, wouldn’t that be on a certain level the same as President Trump owning a company? And wouldn’t owning that company impact the laws that Congress writes? And furthermore, wouldn’t having access to lobbyists from these companies provide insider trading information to these members of Congress, which would not only impact the way they write laws, but also how they buy/trade their stock?

In other words, if a member of Congress owns stock, couldn’t they be charged the same as Martha Stewart?

The solution is simple: EVERYONE in public office must give FULL DISCLOSURE of their financial investments to the public (you know, their BOSS) and be accountable for any decisions they make that impact the value of their investments. You know, like everyone screamed that President Trump needed to release his tax forms.

Either that, or like everyone is screaming about over President Trump, they should remove themselves from their “businesses” (a.k.a. “the companies they own - even if it is via stock”). And the simple way to do that is divest themselves of all of their investments prior to taking office.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2017

Thank You Obama?

To be completely honest, I've only given a passing interest to the goings on of both political party primaries. As a registered Independent living in Ohio, voting for one or the other puts me in that party's affiliation. I'm too independent of thought for that.

Some of what I've grasped so far is that we need to build a wall of some kind, have Mexico pay for it, and provide free college tuition for those using the gender-specific bathroom stated on their birth certificate. Okay, as Lou Costello famously said, "I grasp it, but it keeps slippin' outta my hands!"

One thing that I haven't heard was something that was a main topic a number of years ago. It was more important than any other topic, and that includes man-made climate change. What topic? The thing that was going to destroy this nation. The thing that was going to bankrupt our children's children's children. And that thing was the NATIONAL DEBT!!

Remember that $17+ TRILLION behemoth? Remember when every cable talking head, every politician, and your so-right-wing-that-he-flies-in-circles Uncle Ernie, cried that if we didn't stop spending we'd death spiral out of control financially? Yeah, I remember it too. Whatever happened to that debt?

The Republicans don't seem to be talking about it anymore. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen one Tweet from Donald Trump about it. (Okay, for the record: I don't follow any of these yahoos on Twitter. Sometimes people I follow may reTweet something, but that's about it. And don't get me started on Facebook!) So what happened?

I'll tell you what happened: Obama happened! That's right! Barack Hussein (sometimes known as "Barry") Obama. He became President and not only did the oceans stop rising, but so did the national debt. He must have done it with that famous "Obama money".

And that's why the Republicans aren't talking about it anymore.

I guess it's okay for Congress to keep spending. Thanks, Obama!

(On a less funny note: You can still find the national debt clock here. And I was blown away when I looked at it. That $17 trillion has now reached just over $19 trillion as of this writing.) 

©Emittravel 2016

Independent Influence

I’m really looking forward to the Primary reality show season to end.

As an independent voter, the whole shtick has little appeal for me. It won't be until after the primaries have concluded, and the general election commences, that I will devote any brain synapsis to the process. Until then, blah blah blah . . .

I've often thought how wonderful it would be to get rid of the whole party system. (Don't worry college kids, I'm talking political, not frat.) You know, come out and disband them. But that will never happen. Oh, you could have something happen to eliminate both major yahoos, but eventually sheep of like minds will herd together again. It's inevitable. And one major reason for this is "influence".

It has been said that an independent will never be elected President. I disagree. An independent can be elected, but they might as well spend their term(s) flying around on Air Force One. They will get nothing accomplished. Why? Because Congress is made up of sheep in herds.

One reason John McCain didn't get elected was that he was neither a good Republican, nor a good Democrat. He carried the party affiliation of Republican, but he spent so much time working "across the aisle" that neither side ended up trusting him. There is no such thing as nonpartisan in government. It is a fancy word for one party submitting itself to the other for the benefit of hopefully getting the other party to submit to themselves the next time.

A truly independent President would get nothing accomplished. First off, that person would forever hold the honor of "stealing votes" from the other parties - denying them the Presidency. And second, if the independent President worked with one party, the other party would be slighted and not work with him. And if that President then worked with the other party, then the first would be slighted. And then? See the above paragraph.

I've heard that Donald Trump, currently running under the Republican banner, is threatening to clean House once he gets in office. That he will publicize the corruption - i.e. "financial influence" - in Congress. You know, point out who has ill-gotten gains. And I believe this. He has said that he had given money to Hillary Clinton's previous campaign because he is a business man, and he knows how the system works (if Hillary got in office . . . ). He said he has given to both parties for the same reason. He admits to "financial influence" being the norm.

If Donald Trump becomes President, he will be a lame-duck President from the get go. Not only will he not be a Democrat. Not only will he have gotten the election in spite of the GOP (they are even threatening a brokered convention to get rid of him - which means they WILL hand over the general election to the Democrats - and that is historically true). He will piss off Congress enough that neither party will work with him. He might as well be an independent candidate.

But come on, reality shows aren't REAL, right?

©Emittravel 2016

Pompous Circumstance

Just last week we had the traditional "Let's Stand and Clap at Everything the President Says" speech, a.k.a. "The State of the Union". Unlike the other talking heads on FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc., I'm not going to give you my opinions on the particular things the President said. I can't. I didn't watch the speech. I had no intention of watching it. And no, I'm not an Obama-basher (okay, maybe I am, but not at the moment); I didn't watch them even when G.W. Bush was giving them. I have only caught pieces of the speech given by different Presidents over the years, only because they seem to take over every network channel during them (I love you, Netflix!)

The reason I don't watch it is because the founding fathers of our country did not intend it that way:

Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;"

(Side note: What the hell is it with the capitalized words in the middle of that thing?)

As it states, the President is supposed to give Congress information of the state of the union, along with recommendations. George Washington delivered the first before a joint session of Congress in 1790. Thomas Jefferson thought it too similar to a speech that the King of England would give and stopped the practice (you know, not presidential, but monarchical). From that time on, it was given as a written report to Congress - read by a clerk. I think it was read out loud by a clerk because Xerox hadn't given us the copier yet.

Woodrow Wilson was the first to give the report orally to Congress since Jefferson stopped it. Most Presidents have given the report in writing; Jimmy Carter was the last to do this. Calvin Coolidge gave the report (now a "speech") on radio for the first time in 1923. And, since most Presidents like to outdo each other (how many Presidential Libraries do we need, anyway?), Harry S. Truman gave it for the first time on television in 1947.

Here's where I think it has gone astray. No longer is the State of the Union a report given to CONGRESS, but a political speech in front of the American people. As Congress now stands up and applauds every time the President takes a breath, you can almost hear Thomas Jefferson saying, "I told you so!"

The speech is stupid for another reason: why, oh why, would you have the majority of your government officials in one building at one time? There are all kinds of methodologies put in place to make sure that not everyone is in attendance, but still! Why would one risk it? Hasn't anyone seen "Mars Attacks" or "Independence Day"?!?

All kidding aside, there are plenty of opportunities during the year for the President to address the American people. This should NOT be one of them. Instead of a serious report, it is an opportunity for grandstanding and occasional abuse (of the other Branches). Go back to giving it in writing. Hell, even email it!

Nothing is worse than watching the State of the Union. Outside of the rebuttals that follow, that is.

© Emittravel 2015

Yeah, But Should the FOX Say It?

Sometimes known as the "Fourth Estate", the press has a long history of keeping the government in "check" in its role as the ears of the people. So important a role, that it is even referenced in one of the pinnacles of our constitutional rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

For one sentence, that statement covers a lot of ground! Unfortunately, with such a sentence, there is a lot of room for interpretation. For instance: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" can be taken that Congress shall make no law that respects a religion, one that respects an establishment of religion (like a church building), or one that respects the establishment of a religion (like coming up with a new one, or making a state religion like "The Church of England"). What about the inverse? Can Congress make a law that disrespects one?

Also included is the abridgement of the freedom of speech or of the press. Abridgement means a shortened or condensed form, or a limiting of someone's rights. Cliff Notes are study tools that give a good idea of the first definition. The focus in the amendment is the second definition. We have the right to say what we want. However, we have laws against slander and libel. Slander deals with making false statements against someone. Libel is a false statement against someone that is published. We have freedom to say what we want, even if it offends someone. It's just that that statement cannot be false. You have the right to have an opinion. Heck, the name of this blog is "My Humble But Accurate Opinion". Opinions are views or judgments made, but not necessarily based on facts.

If I say, "The President of the United States dresses in drag and chases neighborhood children," that would be slander. If I published it, that would be libel. But if I say, "The President of the United States has policies that I think are detrimental to the well being of this country," I am giving an opinion. The first is punishable according to the law. The other is protected speech. As a blogger, I have the freedom to give my opinion. Hopefully that also means that I've given my opinion at least a little research background prior to giving it to my readers.

Can I see a show of hands from all of you that hate FOX News? Okay, how about those of you that hate MSNBC? I'm sure you all have your reasons, and I probably will agree with you on them. Here's my point: why are these types of "journalists", members of the "press", allowed to make such outrageous, may I even go far as to call them slanderous, statements and hide under the umbrella of "freedom of the press"?

As I stated above, the press was designed to keep the government in check. It has a responsibility to keep the government honest by holding them accountable to the people (you know, their constituents - a.k.a. "the voters"). But there is a major problem when the press stops reporting the news and just gives us their opinions PORTRAYED as news. There is a major problem when the press buries a story it doesn't like because it goes against their opinions or beliefs as to how the government should be doing things. There is also a major problem when the press reports things that in turn can cause detriment to our armed forces. You know: acts of treason.

What is the difference between a blogger and a journalist when both are simply giving opinions? Do bloggers fall under the same protections of the freedom of the press?

But is it the fault of the press? With the news networks being all owned by the entertainment industry, and ratings and advertising dollars the focus, is it any wonder that they act like they do?

Many are the solutions to fix this. Here's one that I think will help: change the name of the news organizations and make sure they are clear on when they are giving facts versus their opinions.

Change "FOX News" to "FOX News and Opinion".

© Emittravel 2014

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #6

It's been awhile since the last time I posted one of these, so you may want to go back and at least catch the intro.

It's broke . . . 

There has been a desire that Congress must prove the constitutionality of any bill they bring up for a vote. Congress, of course, has ignored this desire and have fought against such a "mandate". Why? Such a mandate would force them to have to read the Constitution and would tie their hands when it comes to attacks upon our liberty.

When it comes to a socially-emphasized agenda, any restrictions against such an agenda must be ignored at all costs. Of course, once a bill has become law, lawyers are brought in (happily lining their pockets) as lawsuits are filed against such laws. While those lawsuits are in process, the new law is considered "good" until proven otherwise. The longer the process, the more entrenched those laws become - forming judicial "precedents" that are often viewed as more legally binding than the very Constitution our system is based upon.

Why not force Congress to prove that the bill they are proposing IS constitutional to begin with? Would we have to worry about attacks against the 2nd Amendment that take away our liberty - empowering those who desire to harm us (not just criminals - a.k.a. "lawbreakers", but the very government that oversteps its bounds), or our 1st Amendment rights to voice opinions such as these, and to worship anywhere we so desire (including "public" property)?

I think it is time for those very politicians who have taken an OATH to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States to accept that they are not our gods, but our servants. And that we the people should not have to provide the leg work to prove when they are out of line to prove a law is unconstitutional.

. . . time to fix it!

© Emittravel 2013

Stuff My Brain Says #54

I just read that Congress has proposed the addition of an online sales tax as a rider to the defense authorization bill. It's not that I'm for or against an online sales tax, I'm just mad that these bozos put the two together. What does an online sales tax have to do with defense?? Answer: not a damn thing.

For more on this, see my blog article on the concept of one bill, one vote.

© Emittravel 2012

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #5

It's broke . . .

When it comes to eliminating the nation's debt and balancing the budget there has been nothing but a stalemate in Congress. * Conservatives want cuts without tax increases. Liberals want tax increases without cuts. Both won't give an inch.

Now, as a fiscal-conservative, I have to sympathize with the conservatives here. Both Presidents Reagan and Bush (senior) agreed to a congressional plan to raise taxes $1 for every $3 in cuts. Both Presidents were blasted (and rightfully so) for this move, and they both regretted making it. Why? Because the tax increases took effect immediately, and the cuts were to future spending. None of the cuts have ever come to fruition. Why? Because you can't force a future Congress to abide by budgets set under previous congresses.

The solution is simple: put in a stipulation that states that if the tax cuts do not take place by a certain date, the tax increases are AUTOMATICALLY rescinded, including reimbursement to those affected (including those evil rich people). Make it a hard and fast law that a future Congress can't break.

 

Now THAT'S what you call a compromise we can live with!

. . . time to fix it!

* Generalization - both conservatives AND liberals have not been too keen on spending cuts

© Emittravel 2011

Stuff My Brain Says #19

A 5.9 magnitude earthquake stuck Washington D.C. today. As tragic as that may sound, Congress and the White House were reportedly pleased: at least the earth did not open up and swallow them whole!

© Emittravel 2011

Time to Stop Compromising

(Time for a good rant:)

Now is a really good time to stop compromising. You heard me Washington: stop compromising. Stand for something! Don't do what is politically expedient. Who cares if you lose votes. Do what is RIGHT! Even if it turns out to be wrong, do it anyway.

Everyone knows the old saying: "When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall." Everyone knows that, except our so-called leaders in Washington. Congratulations. You raised the debt ceiling. Do you know what that means? It is a breather to give us time. Time for what? Time to fix it, for crying out loud. But do you know what will happen instead? They will outspend that ceiling as well. Guarantee it. As sure as politicians are unable to tell the truth, it will happen.

Do what will probably cost you votes: cut spending. We all know that those "evil" rich people need to be punished for succeeding. But if you take ALL of the net worth of all of those "evil" rich people (according to our leaders, that is any couple earning over $250k/yr) and apply it to the non-existent budget (thank you Democrat-led Senate), it wouldn't even dent it. It's not a supply-side issue. It's an expense-side issue.

And don't cut future spending. Cut current spending. And when all of those living with their hands out start whining, buck up and tell them it's your fault! If you wouldn't have tried to give everyone a free lunch, we wouldn't be starving ourselves now. Tell them you really wanted to make a socialist utopia here in America, but mathematically it just doesn't work, and now its time to stop the gravy train before it derails (or more likely, runs out of track).

We do know that the socialist dream will eventually arrive in full here in America. It’s a given. A shot won't be fired. A war will not be fought. We will simply be OWNED by China. Funny thing is, if it wasn't for capitalist policies implemented in China over the last twenty years or so, China wouldn't be the power it is. Like I said, mathematically socialism/communism/Marxism NEVER works.

So get off your compromising butts and do what is right. We are waiting.

© Emittravel 2011

The Donkeys Have It!

I think our government is working on their own "Mythbusters" episode. It has been said that if you dig a hole deep enough you will reach China. Maybe that is why President Obama met with President Hu Jintao of China: in case it's not a myth, he wanted to make sure he had good reservations for when he gets there.

Congress has spent us into such a large hole that, in twisted government logic, it has been decided that a larger shovel must be needed to get us out.

There is a story of an old donkey that fell into a large hole. Instead of trying to lift it out of the hole the villagers decided to just bury it. So they started bringing all of their trash to the hole and dumping it on top of the donkey. The donkey would shake it off and stamp it down. The villagers would bring more trash and dump it on the donkey. The donkey would shake it off and stamp it down. This kept going on until one day there was enough trash under the donkey that it simply stepped out of the hole.

Note: My wife, as I read this to her, asked me to clarify the above analogy to make sure it was getting across what I intended. So here is the legend:

• The old donkey - that is us (the nation)
• The large hole - the debt (that was easy)
• The villagers - Congress
• The trash - revenue (tax dollars, which is the way the government raises funds to operate)

The villagers didn't give the donkey a shovel and told it to dig its way out, they filled the hole - albeit unintentionally.

You need to stop digging the hole deeper before you try to fill it up. That's the key.

My pastor told a story of a car he had when he was younger. It was such a gas hog that when he went to fill it up the attendant (back in the day when someone else would pump your gas for you, and that person wasn't your spouse) would say, "You gotta shut that thing off; you're getting ahead of me!"

Our nation is really hurting right now. Sometimes you just have to apply a tourniquet before you try to patch the wound. And we've got a real bleeder on our hands!

(Sorry about all of the analogies - must be the result of going through my poetry. . .)

I'm not going to argue in this issue whether or not increasing taxes is the solution to filling the hole (it's not, by the way. Even President Kennedy knew that!), but cutting spending is a must!

Maybe those in Congress can take the advice of the old donkey in the story above - and believe you me, if they follow MY advice they WILL get a lot of trash dumped on them. They need to shake it off and do what's right. The financial future of our country depends on it!

Who said you can't learn anything from a jackass?

© Emittravel 2011

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #4

It's broke . . .

Cost savings idea: Congress must PROVE that any bill they present is explicitly permitted in the Constitution. How is this a cost savings idea? Think of all the time and money saved in not having to prove that such-in-such law is NOT Constitutional.

I like to think that sometimes great minds think alike, but since I’m comparing myself to members of the House of Representatives, "great" may be a bit of an exaggeration! One of the House Rules being run up the flag pole is exactly the topic of this post: Constitutionality for any bill proposed. The reasoning for each may be a bit different: they are trying to reign in the size and cost of government as a whole; I'm looking at it from the legal battle side.

(Side note: I have a list of topics for this blog that are in the queue. This particular item has been waiting for me to stop eating holiday leftovers and get down to the business of writing it. I heard of the House announcement after this item was placed in the queue. Thus the above paragraph . . . )

I wonder if the main reason our government does things is so that lawyers have work. And I understand that they have families to feed, but honestly, can we really consider it a major loss to the world to have less of them? Lawyers; not their families. Unless they are raising "little lawyers". Then I retract the clarification.

Why does our government insist on ignoring the very document that gives them ANY authority in the first place? They pass bills that are clearly in violation of that document, and find it tied up in the court system forever, for what? In the hopes that nobody is paying attention? Really? Honestly? If you folks are that dense, please don't give speeches on how you are men and women OF the people. You insult us. Maybe they hope that the "Supremes" will actually go along with their blatant disregard of Constitutional law and rule in their favor. At that point I think the "Supremes" need to stop and reconsider what branch of the government they are supposed to be, and stop legislating!

So let's stop clogging the court drains with avoidable lawsuits, and the expense of fighting them. Especially when you consider who is filing (and paying for) the lawsuits! Example: if a state files suit who do you think picks up the legal fees? That's right! The taxpayers.

Fixing the legal system - where do you start?

Come to think of it, there is something to the "clearing clogged drains and government" analogy above - snakes!! If you keep 'em clear, you won't need the lawyers!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2011

This Will Hurt You More Than . . .

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution states:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Now, I'm no lawyer, and I don't play one on television, but I have to admit, when I read the above I have difficulty understanding just where Congress gets the ideas they have concerning their (apparently) unlimited power. Maybe one has to actually BE a lawyer to really muddy up the works and make "black and white" nothing but "shades of grey". When I read this I see the word "among" in the middle when referencing "the several states", whereas the word "with" is used when referencing the other two. Why? Relationships, my friends; relationships.

The ability to have commerce between the United States and foreign nations would be difficult if left in the hands of multiple state governments, each with their own regulations. What about the borders? Tariffs? Protection of shipping lanes? Very difficult for the state of West Virginia to control what enters the ports of New York. It makes sense for the central government to develop the relationships with foreign nations, negotiate treaties, and therefore "regulate" the commerce developed in the relationships. The same with the Indian tribes. They were widely scattered, and in many cases, mobile communities, that traversed state lines. A difficult relationship to secure if each state handled communications differently. But what about commerce and the states?

The word "among" is a relational word that is defined, in part, as "in the midst of", "with a share for each of", and "by all or with the whole of" (Dictionary.com). This word denotes an established bond between the states already in existence. In other words, interstate business relationships. So, if there is commerce ALREADY IN EXISTENCE between states, the central government has the right to step in and regulate it for the good of the nation.

The point? The Congress' use of the "commerce clause" as a right to enforce a national health care mandate (i.e. "Obamacare") is a clear overstepping of their authority. There IS NO health care commerce ALREADY IN EXISTENCE between the states TO regulate! We in Ohio can't buy health insurance offered in Wyoming. Each state handles health insurance separately. The ability to purchase health insurance across state lines was one of the suggestions made during the debates leading up to the Obamacare vote. It was argued down. Apparently the federal government is far better at regulating better coverage at lower prices than the free market is. I guess that, in the eyes of Congress, socialism is far superior, and more effective, than capitalism. I'm thinking it would have been smarter to allow interstate commerce of health insurance, and THEN they would have something to regulate.

So, the next time you hear one of our illustrious leaders spout the "commerce clause" as their reason for regulating something, hand them a dictionary, and then tell them to turn their head and cough!!

©Emittravel 2010

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #3

It's broke . . .

This article will have some reference material from our country's founders. Please do not skim over it; it is necessary to make my point. And I did try to be brief. And as you read, I'm sure you will understand that one of the ways to "fix it" is:

Term limits for all elected officials. If it is good enough for the President, it is good enough for them!

From Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

3.1 The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, FOR SIX YEARS; and each Senator shall have one vote. (emphasis added)

3.2 Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class SHALL BE VACATED at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, SO THAT ONE THIRD MAY BE CHOSEN EVERY SECOND YEAR; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. (emphasis added)

(Note: 3.1 was changed in the 17th Amendment to show that they were to be elected by the people of each state thereof, and not by the legislature.)

Federalist Paper #63, concerning the possibility of the senate being transformed into a "tyrannical aristocracy", argued that by holding an election every two years would bring NEW individuals to the body, ONE-THIRD of the members, thereby preventing a tyrannical and corrupt Senate by the very vacating of the members. Federalist Paper #64 argues that the knowledge gained by the body would be maintained by the TWO-THIRDS that remain every two-year election cycle, thereby keeping the "wisdom" of the Senate that we hear is so important.

My point? The writers of the above documents NEVER IMAGINED LIFE MEMBERS like Byrd, Kennedy, Kucinich, etc. The word "incumbent" was not a term they recognized. If they did, their arguments against a corrupt Senate would have been meaningless. They saw only ONE-TERM Senators. That's it. No more.

What do we have today? A clearly corrupt Legislative Branch of the government. A group only concerned with their own agendas and NO LONGER ANSWERABLE to the people.

Don't agree with me? Really? C'mon. Didn't you stay up and watch all of the back slapping on CSPAN as they PROUDLY voted in ObamaCare?

Sure, there is an election every two years, but honestly, have you tried to wade through all of the mud to find what is truth about the candidates? Refer to Article #1 of this series (below) to see how difficult it is to even discern the voting records of these bozos.

If the founders would have known what Congress would have become, I'm sure they would have felt obliged to explicitly spell it out! Apparently, they felt the members of THAT society were more honorable. Of course, they didn't have all of the cushy benefits of staying in office like they have voted themselves today!

I'm making the point with just reference to the Senate. Again, these are to be quick articles. It would take quite a few more keystrokes, and liquid stabilizer, to go into areas such as the Supreme Court. But rest assured, as I've read through the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, the first reference to a "re-election" of an official was of the President. If the concept was even a consideration, it would have been mentioned when discussing the House of Representatives and the Senate as well.

By the way, the Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947, limiting the President to two terms of four years. I would love the Congress to pass such an amendment concerning themselves. Shouldn't people like Nancy Pelosi, champion of the most non-corrupt government, lead the charge? The founders believed it to be a way to curb corruption. I'm thinking they were right!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2010

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #2

It's broke . . .

1. Lock the Federal budget for 2011 at the actual 2010 budget amounts. Actual budget amounts, not projected budget amounts. No new spending allowed for anything. Anything. Not one dime for any new projects; no current department increases. Nothing.

Understand, when Congress, or the President, brags about cutting the budget by, say, $250 Billion, what they really mean was that they were going to INCREASE the budget by $1 Trillion dollars, but decided to cut out $250 Billion and only INCREASE the budget by $750 Billion. See? You can always tell when a politician is lying: their lips move.

2. After one year reduce that budget amount by one percent - across the board. Not equal amounts, but equal sacrifice. No special interests. Nothing. This means not "punishing" the military and "boosting" education - or visa versa! Every line item on the budget gets a one percent reduction. Like real businesses do, review what you are doing and cut the fat. A real business doesn't last very long swimming in red ink. If a department/project isn't working, quit throwing more money at it!! Give it a polite funeral instead.

3. Reduce that budget by one percent across the board the next year, repeating each year until the country is in the black. That means, the outgo is less than the income, the country owes no one anything, and the complete elimination of the deficit.

...and we'll give you the key when you've cleaned your (the country's) room!!

This would force Congress to "balance the budget" and get us back on track. We USED to be the world's largest lender, and NOW we are the largest borrower. I always wondered what would happen if countries like China decided they wanted us to pay them immediately, in full, for what we owe them . . .

4. Oh, and shut down that damn printing press! Now, you have to understand that one of the ways the government can get out of debt is printing more money. They then pay off the debts with that money. In reality it also has the benefit of lowering the value of that money by flooding the market, in other words, INFLATION.

If someone outside the government prints currency it is considered counterfeit. Why? It doesn't have the full confidence and backing of the United States. It has less worth than Monopoly money. But if the government keeps printing money to represent money it doesn't actually HAVE, THAT is worth less than Monopoly money too.

There is an old proverb that says if you are faithful with little you will be faithful with much. Congress has proven that they have not been faithful with the PEOPLE'S money - they should not have more of it until they PROVE themselves otherwise.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2010