National Debt - OMG!

$17,024,169,000,000

In about four years our National Debt has gone from just under $12 trillion to just over $17 trillion dollars. The chart below shows our debt increase from 1960 to 2010 and on this scale the recent $5,000,000,000,000 dollar increase would reach about half way up this paragraph.

I've repeatedly heard arguments that our national debt hasn't grown as a percentage of our GDP.  However, our external debt to GDP ratio is now 100% and growing exponentially.

What can be done?

For starters everyone who thinks entitlements are not the issue needs to read the 2013 Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustee Report that clearly and unequivocally states that all parts of Social Security will be broke by the year 2035.

Note a that "DI" Disability Insurance is broke by 2016 and "HI" Hospital Insurance goes broke before "OASI" Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is exhausted.

It's true that over half of our national debt is owed to our government but it's also true that those debts are coming due as Social Security needs to cash in more and more "bonds" to cover entitlement payments which are only going to further accelerate the increase in our national debt.

The solution is simple but painful - We as a nation have to stop spending more than we have.

Eric Cantor Sums it up

 
Eric Cantor

"We all agree Obamacare is an abomination.

We all agree taxes are too high.

We all agree spending is too high.

We all agree Washington is getting in the way of job growth.

We all agree we have a real debt crisis that will cripple future generations.

We all agree on these fundamental conservative principles. . . . We must not confuse tactics with principles.

The differences between us are dwarfed by the differences we have with the Democratic party, and we can do more for the American people united,”

Letter to Secretary Jewell

  
Dear Madam Secretary (Department of Interior)

The National Park Service employees 24,645 people and during this shut down 2,139 park police, EMS and fire personal have remained on duty.  It's clear the park system needs to be closed, however some closures were politically motivated and gives one insight to how populations can seemingly rise up against their government.

From the closing of 24/7 open-air memorials, to highway overlooks of Mount Rushmore and the Grand Canyon being blocked off, to reports from Park Rangers saying they have been instructed to make the shutdown as painful as possible... You Madam Secretary, have taken the government shutdown too far.

The Park Service has closed venues that simply aren't designed to be closed.  They have closed outdoor, normally unmanned, monuments, government roads, parking lots and in some cases individual parking spaces.  The NPS has prevented citizens from accessing their homes which happen to be on government land.  You have closed roads you don't maintain, marinas you share, entire waterways and even large areas of the ocean.

After past shutdowns, Congress has authorized government workers to receive back-pay.  This time I've asked my Representative to exempt NPS employees from back wages.  I know this is "unfair" to thousands of dedicated civil servants but a message needs to be sent and heard by you and the entire Department of the Interior.  Our national treasures, our monuments, roads, highway overlooks and parking lots are not to be used as political fodder and the NPS should have done everything within it's power to ensure as much access was granted as budget constraints, park police, EMS and fire personal staffing would allow.

Expending resources and man-hours to close things that aren't closeable was such bad form it underscores why many citizen believe that their government is at best out of touch or at worst fails to understand who government serves.  This country belongs to the people and "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance" - Thomas Jefferson
 

Senate strips House language to delay ObamaCare

Let's get this Right

On Monday (Sep 30th) the Senate voted 54-46 to strip language from a House funding bill that delayed ObamaCare which resulted in the government shutdown.  That last time this happened was December 1995 when the government was closed for business for 21 days.

OMG the sky is once again falling... Not Really....

I've said repeatedly I don't agree with what the GOP is doing.  It's not good politics regardless on how this plays out Republicans will be blamed for the pain associated with the shut down and voters will remember.  Although I support the principled argument of those wanting to shut down the government I can't figure out why the GOP continues to fall on a live grenade with a smile.

It's also important to note that this last House vote was to delay the Affordable Health Care Act, not defund.  This delay vote was widely reported as trying to defund the Affordable Health Care Act, but just like the President delaying the employer mandate the Republicans, albeit at the last minute, compromised and just attempted to delay the personal mandate.

Let's make this clear... The House Continuing Resolution (CR) was asking for a one year delay in the individual mandate and the reversal of the medical device tax.

A few things to remember:

CBO now projects that the insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act will have a net cost to the federal government of $1,363 billion over the next 10 years and you can bet that's an understatement.

In 2012 the federal government collected $2,902 billion in taxes (all time record) but spent $3,803 billion.

That has us spending $901 billion a year or $17.3 billion a week we don't have.

That's roughly what it would cost to build three nuclear aircraft carriers... Every week.

The TEA Party Republicans of the House... All 49 of them... have taken a stance against government expansion.  They have alienated themselves with their party, the media and likely the American public but I for one support their efforts even though I don't agree with their methods.

My views are more inline with my Congressman Scott Rigell:

representative-scott-rigell--republican-traitor

*** UPDATE *** 

The one year delay of the personal mandate requested by the House Republican's which is what actually closed the government... Well the President, through executive mandate, ordered a one year extension for the personal mandate.  How do I know?  I was one of the people who took the President up on this and had affordable, substandard, health care insurance for an extra year. 

ARGGGGGGGG!!!!!!

Feds Shut Down Privately Owned Mount Vernon

“Deliberate effort to hurt the public”

The National Park Service erected barricades to shut down parking lots surrounding Mount Vernon despite the fact that the tourist destination is privately owned, another example of how the feds are deliberately worsening the government shut down.

Mount Vernon is the former plantation of George Washington and is owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, which doesn’t receive any government funding. The attraction’s official website reads, “NO SHUTDOWN HERE – The Federal government may be shut down, but Washington’s home remains open. Mount Vernon has remained a private non-profit for more than 150 years.”

However, a dispute began when the National Park Service began putting up barricades to block off the facility’s car park, blockading the entrance as well as a spot where tour buses turn around.

The parking lots are co-owned by Mount Vernon and the NPS, but require no immediate maintenance at all, meaning the decision to close them down was completely unnecessary.

The feds even blocked off a small area consisting of just three parking spaces.

After blogger Stephen Gutowski exposed the situation, Newt Gingrich got in on the act, tweeting, “The tour bus turnaround at Mount Vernon has been closed by federal police. This is deliberate effort by Obama to hurt the public. Disgusting.”

Numerous other sites around DC have been unnecessarily closed by the NPS and other federal agencies in what critics are labeling a cynical political stunt which only serves to punish the American people.

In some cases, efforts to shut down these sites actually require more manpower and resources than if they had been left open, highlighting the fact that this is an act of partisan theater by the Obama administration to pin the blame for the government shutdown on Republicans and opponents of Obamacare.

- Numerous hiking and biking trails throughout the greater DC region, despite requiring zero immediate maintenance or patrols, have been closed down. Irate citizens are merely flouting the law and using them anyway.

- The NPS has stationed officers along the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal that runs 184 miles from Washington, D.C. to Cumberland, Maryland to make sure nobody uses the bike paths. It would have required less manpower to keep this trail open. The handles on all the well pumps have also been removed.

- The feds also shut down a tiny park in which children play on fake turtles, prompting angry mothers to remove the barriers, only to see them put back up. “The park is extremely small and sort of seems pointless to block off,” reports the Daily Caller.

- Lincoln Park in DC, which is known to be used by several Democratic Senators, was not shut down, but numerous national parks across Montana were closed.

- The most widely reported case occurred at the World War II memorial in DC, where the NPS tried to prevent veterans from seeing the monument by erecting barriers and even threatening vets with arrest. The veterans stormed through the barricades anyway. “People had to spend hours setting up barricades where there are never barricades to prevent people from seeing the World War II monument because they’re trying to play a charade,” Senator Rand Paul told Fox News.

Senior Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee are considering opening up an investigation into where the Obama administration directly ordered the “outrageous” closure of the memorial as part of a ploy to “make the current lapse in appropriations as conspicuous and painful to the public as possible,” according to the letter from chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and subcommittee chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

Paul Joseph Watson
October 3, 2013

-------------------------

I want the NPS management who ordered these venues closed fired.  For personal reasons they took it upon themselves to expend resources during a government shut down to close things that actually require effort to close.  If it's determined that the administration ordered these closures that connection needs to be established and those responsible held accountable.  Sounds like a good use of the freedom of information act... Once the shut down is over of course.

Founding Fathers' Tavern Closed by Government Shutdown

"City Tavern's operators are told to lock up"

The restaurant, which opened for the first time in 1773 and was frequented by the nation's founding fathers, sits inside Independence National Historical Park and the building is owned by the U.S. National Parks Service.

Both have been shut down since Tuesday when the federal government began its new fiscal year without agreeing on how to fund non-essential agencies. Nearly 200 park employees were also furloughed because of the funding issue.

Since the park is closed, officials told City Tavern operator Chef Water Staib on Wednesday the restaurant had to lock up as well.

Restaurant public relations director Molly Yun said they were notified there was a possibility a closure might happen, but they were allowed to remain open during the last government shutdown 17 years ago.

"We were somewhat shocked when we received the news today that we would have to close at 3 p.m.," she said. "Unfortunately, we're going to have to stay closed until the government re-opens and our hands are tied."

Shut it Down - Even if it's Always Open?

Shut it Down - Even if it's Always Open?

The government is shut down but it has the resources to order Park Service Personal to erect barriers at various, always open to the public, Washington D.C. Memorials.  I've visited many of our nations memorials after hours and some of my most memorable visits have been reading the words of Lincoln and Jefferson late at night.  To walk the mall as the sun sets and see the Koren and Vietnam memorial in the dimming light is nothing more than moving.

Why did the admistration think it was a good idea to close something that's not normally closed.  The WWII memorial “is an open-air memorial that the public has 24/7 access to under normal circumstance - even when Park Service personnel aren’t present. It actually requires more effort and expense to shut out these veterans from their Memorial than it would to simply let them through. My office has been in touch with NPS officials and the Administration to try to resolve this issue.”

"On Wednesday, the veterans' group is planning to visit the Lincoln Memorial, which the Obama Administration has also vowed to close to visitors. I have regularly visited this memorial at one or two in the morning. At those hours, it is a peaceful and reflective place. It is an open space. There is no access that needs to be blocked. It is only by a conscious decision, and a great deal of work, that access would be blocked."

The shut down is going to cause much real pain.  Imagine your a mother of five, you're out of food and you need food stamps to feed your children but that agency is closed.  Imagine your a family that's about to get approval for your home loan only to find out FHA or VA loans are on hold.  Everything is planned, your household goods are coming and you have no extra cash to get a hotel for a few weeks while the government is shut down.

I understand this type of hardship and the shut down angers me.  But going out of your way to shut down something that's normally open to the public, something that is as open as the National Mall or the Korean War memorial is "gratuitous and petulant" and shows insight to what our countries leadership has become.

This is how it works?

JPMorgan Chase Stock Holders

Lets say you own a BUNCH of JPMorgan Chase stock.  JPMorgan Chase lost approx $9 billion with that overseas trading debacle which hurt your stock and reduced the dividend to share holders.

So what is the governments response?

Not a single person is punished... BUT the company has agreed to pay $920 million to the "government" to settle?   ABC News

WHICH MEANS THE SHARE HOLDERS GET HAMMERED A SECOND TIME?

Is this really how things work?

---------

Update - October 21, 2013

The Department of Justice and JP Morgan agree to a $13 billion settlement and shareholders get hammered yet again!  At the lowest point of the recession The Federal Government strong arms JP Morgan to buy Bear Stears & Washington Mutual.  Turns out those company's problems and miss steps and included illegal activity which no become the problem of JP Morgan (who didn't want them in the first place) which results in one of the largest fines in history.?

We are not holding the people who caused the problems responsible... It's the shareholders who are taking it in the shorts!  Welcome to the new world order.  What the hell is wrong with this country?
 

F/A-18 Hornet -vs- F-35 JSF

Reduce Jet Noise in Virginia Beach

Oceana was here before the "City" of Virginia Beach but for the most part (F-4 notwithstanding) the aircraft  have gotten louder and louder and thousands of homes have been built... yet the base was here first.

All local home owners can hope for, as we approach the end of the fiscal year and the inevitable conversion of JP-5 into dB's, is a minimal level of noise awareness by our military pilots.  Even though many in the military and politicians alike think the recent F/A-18 crash and the new louder F-35 JSF will have little or no impact on Oceana being added to the next BRAC list, I remember how panicked our local politicians and senior military were the last time Oceana was on the BRAC list.  Bottom line, believing Oceana is immune from the BRAC is foolish.

One idea to help shore up Oceana's future is to make the airfield home to Virginia Beach's General Aviation (GA) fleet now mostly based in Norfolk and Chesapeake.  This would be great for local military who are interested in flying but acknowledge Chesapeake's two airports are too far away and Norfolk, while much closer, lacks hangers, GA repair facilities, aviation gas is $7.30 verses $5.79 a gallon and annual plane property taxes are whopping $2.40 verses .58 per $100 in Chesapeake and Suffolk.

Joint use air bases work great for the Coast Guard.  The Air Force has 12, the Army 10 but the Navy only has one.  Clearly the Air Force, Army have over come traffic issues and security concerns.  It should be noted that until post 9-11 NAS Oceana didn't even have a perimeter fence.  Finding a way for GA planes to coexist with Navy Jets would take coordination.  Certain times of the day would have to be excluded as jets, costing taxpayers nearly $25,000 per hour, would always have priority but the Navy could figure out something.

When the next BRAC comes a calling it will be too late to think outside the box.  Establishing a GA presence now for interested military and civilians would shore up Oceana against the the next BRAC and the increased contact between military and civilian pilots might encourage jet jocks to keep their power down and thus noise levels while flying over populated areas or until "feet wet"... tallyho.
 

Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act

Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act

There has been little public support for the repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act other than from active gun groups and a few legislators.  Most states (all but three) already had or have laws dealing with guns on school property which makes me wonder why the federal government continues to pass feel good legislation.

Some say, and I agree, that this law has done nothing to curb school shootings and violates the Constitution; specifically the 10th amendment verses the Commerce Clause, which was used to rule the previous 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutional.

Many concerned legislators and citizens argue that schools are safer and that's all that matters.  

Smart Gun Laws

However, the continued erosion of our legal precepts by groups that apply this Machiavellian approach to enforcement worries me.  Our laws protect our individual freedoms and those guaranteed by our founding principles are being lost a little at a time.
  
Two states have challenged the Gun-Free School Zones law arguing that teachers and administration personal should be allowed to carry concealed weapons if they have undergone the back ground check and training required.  The idea that our schools are known "soft targets" must have had some impact in the various school shootings from Columbine to Virginia Tech.  Don't get me wrong... I don't want untrained teachers and principals walking around with a concealed or holstered six shooter.  I don't want parents picking up their kids with AR-15's strapped to their backs but I don't have a problem with a former navy seal, now 4th grade teacher, carrying a concealed SIG Sauer 9mm. 

Is this law effective?  If it’s not effective get rid of it.  It would seem that many legislators and anti-gun supporters don't want to know or don't care.  For me it’s clear that teachers, staff and children following the law are at risk while criminals and the mentally ill do what they have done over and over and no law or feel good legislation is ever going to change this.

The Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854 and Abraham Lincoln was it's first President in 1861.

On April 8th, 1864 the Senate passed the Thirteenth Amendment with 100% of Republicans voting aye and 75% of Democrats voting nay/not voting.  The House Bill fell short of the two-thirds needed.  Next year, on January 31st, 1865 the House Bill passed with 14 Democrats and all 85 Republicans voting aye while 71 Democrats still voted nay.

Thirteenth Amendment vote record:

 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/38-1/s134
 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/38-2/h480

Moving forward nearly 100 years and it was Southern Democrats that had perfected black voter suppression and fought so hard against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In the end Congress passed the Civil Rights Act with 80% of Republicans verses 64% of Democrats voting aye.

Last week the country celebrated 50 years since Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous and copy righted "I have a Dream" speech which is why you will not find an official written version, let alone the full broadcast in the main stream media until 2038 because the King family have copy written everthing they can.

The King Center, which represents the King family, was reportedly paid $700,000 for the use of the likeness and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. on... wait for it... the Washington Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial.

Which reminds me, I don't think a single Republican leader or famous Republican spoke at last weeks 50th year anniversary of the march on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

I would have like liked to see South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Congressman Allen West, Alan Keyes, Dr. Ben Carson or even the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mr. Michael Steele speak but being Republicans they were not invited.
 
Unfortunately for years the Grand Old Party has gone against their founding principles and I believe this is what angers many Republicans.  A party that believes in less government and taking personal responsibility has seemingly joined forces with the Democrats and expanded government to a point of no return.

I hope the Republican Party finds it's way back to it's founding principles and black American's will consider supporting candidates without a "D" next to their name.

 Republican Party Platform 
 Democratic Party Platform

Government Tracks Who You Mail and Who Mails You...

Should I Stop Using a Return Address?

In 1979 the Supreme Court created the "third-party doctrine", that Americans lose their expectation of privacy whenever they voluntarily give information to a third party, such as a phone company. Telling the phone company whom you call by dialing a number is enough to surrender your expectation of privacy that you are contacting that person.  The court did, however, preserve the letter analogy governing U.S. mail. That is, only what's on the envelope is fair game.

Which begs the question... if the NSA is hell bent on Meta Data, I wonder if they have an agreement with the Post Office to track who we mail and who mails us?  In 1997 the post office began using computers to read addresses.  In the beginning, they succeeded about 10% of the time with a 2% error rate.  Today over 90% of all mail is processed by computer and for those hard to read addresses, there is a large plain looking warehouse in Salt Lake City filled with rows of cubicles were Postal Service’s data conversion operators decipher the worst hand written addresses.

So basically, every single piece of mail in the US is routed via computer and naturally with the Snowden revelation one should assume the NSA or some other shadow government agency is capturing this data for future use.  I don't doubt for a moment that the NSA is properly safeguarding our data.  However, it's only a matter of time before another administration, J. Edgar Hoover wannabe or "something" else taps into this data for some future unforeseen nefarious purpose.

Mr. Snowden basically sacrificed his freedom, potentially his life, to tell the people of the world that there really is a Big Brother.  Whether his "crime" is comparable to the governments criminality is yet to be seen and regardless of what the talking heads may indicate, his guilt should be determined by a court and not proclaimed by our elected officials.  I for one think the recent 205-to-217 Congressional vote to block the National Security Agencies ability to collect vast amounts of phone records was far closer than the White House expected, and leads credibility that Mr. Snowden is a whistle blower.

So if you're thinking it's time to stop putting return addressed on your mail and start using 128 bit encryption for everything Internet based, think again.  If something is encrypted the legal assumption can be made, for right or wrong, the information is from a non-US source and thus not subject to constitutional restrictions.  The data can now be held indefinitely and oh by the way; the NSA likely has back doors built in to the encryption we use and or CPU's.

Lastly, if the NSA can't crack what you send or your CPU they likely can get into the computer that sent it which reminds... It's time to beef up my computer's passwords, upgrade my firewall, turn off sharing and unplug all computers from the Internet when not in use.  Call me silly but those crazy conspiracy nuts aren't looking so nutty lately.

US Health Care in the 21st Century

As the United States slowly recovers from recession, the European Union struggles and Britain continues to decouple it's economy from the EU it's hard to believe that over forty years ago President Nixon repeatedly lobbied Congress to pass comprehensive health care reform:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3311

Nixon's arguments for heath care reform make sense today and it's possible that our current national health care anxiety is part of the reason the United States' recovery has been so anemic and Europe's recovery, with it's expansive social programs, has repeatedly stalled.

Today, we are still dealing with health care reform as the house again votes (40 times now) to repeal Obama care while the administration determines sections of the legislation need to be rewritten, delayed or just not enforced such as congressional staffers.  All of this results in uncertainty for business, which again further exasperates our economic recovery.

The Affordable Health Care Act addressed many needed reforms but does it take us down the path of a European based socialized health care?  Regardless, many Americans absolutely want a European single payer system while others see this as North versus South... Korea.

I propose a completely different approach to health care, not modeled on the European single payer system but one that incorporates the popular & positive changes of the Affordable Health Care Act while turning on the competitive switch we see in other forms of insurance such as auto and home.  The crux of my argument is that insurance is just insurance.  I've been selling it for over 20 years and it boggles my mind how people try to make it into something it's not.  Life insurance isn't a savings vehicle and health insurance isn't too complicated to be sold individually.  If group health plans didn't exist, it's likely individual health plan premiums would come down.

Consider this... Would it makes sense for federal employees or Home Depot employees to get their auto insurance from their employer?  That is silly... So why are we so committed to employers provided health care?

Fourth-Five million Americans don't have health insurance for two reasons.  They don't think they need it or it costs to much.  This insurance gap is an incredible drain on our economy and puts American companies at a significant disadvantage when they try to compete globally. 

What can be done?

Forty-eight states require car insurance, lenders require home insurance and the Affordable Health Care Act will soon requires health insurance.  OK... So for starters make health insurance mandatory for those ages 26 to 65 without exception.  Get the federal and state governments out of providing insurance for employees and find ways to prohibit employers from providing health insurance to their employees.  Employers should not be incentivized, via the tax code, to offer any insurance.  If offered, the policies should cover everyone and cost the employee nothing.  Furthermore, the CEO's plan should be no different to that of the mail clerk.

With reform all cost associated with health care should be fully deductible to the individual (recovered for the poor via the earned income credit) and it should save money if 100% of preventive medicine was paid for by a combination of local, state and federal government.

In addition:

The current Medicare drug cost "doughnut hole" should be filled so that Medicare covers the cost of drugs after a certain amount which is now $2,970 for 2013.

Insurance companies can't screen for or maintain databases of those with pre-existing conditions.

Insurers can only base rates on age, NOT sex or past treatment.

Upon birth children are automatically added to parents health insurance and covered up to the age of 26.

Insurance payouts are not capped.

Health coverage reports are standardized so consumers can accurately compare health insurance plans.

The cost of procedures are pre-disclosed and not based on who is paying.

At 65 Medicare kicks in for everybody.

An expansion of the private insurance premium base with healthy individuals while ensuring those with existing medical issues can get coverage will be a net plus.  The private medical system continues intact and it's my hope that standardize health care cost benefit reports and upfront cost transparency will allow market forces to do what they have done so well in other areas of our economy.

Lastly, I look forward to one day having Flo (Progressive car insurance) help me bundle my car, home and health insurance.

Is the United States worse off than Detroit?

Detroit went bankrupt owing $19 billion, which breaks down to $27,000 per Detroit resident.  At nearly $17 trillion, every American owes roughly $53,000.  In other words, at $27,000 a city is bankrupt but at $53,000 it's business as usual.  How much longer can this go on?

Sequester was triggered when the legislative an executive branches couldn't come up with a debt reduction solution.  The Dems would not cut social programs and the GOP would not cut defense during a time of war.  Since WWII only seven federal budgets balanced.  Why would ANYONE think Congress and the President could find a way to do it now?  Even with sequestration our debt continues to compound.

In just ten years our federal budget increased $1.6 trillion to $3.8 trillion.  This massive spending increase coupled with a $17 trillion dollar national debt helps explain why the world down graded our debt three times since August of 2011.  With rates on the rise, the cost of servicing our debt will increase and unless we actually balance our budget the United States will go the way of Detroit.

Abortion Clinics -vs- Keystone Pipeline

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government."  - Thomas Jefferson

What would the redhead from Virginia think of the country he helped found?  In 1803 Jefferson more than doubled the size of America and yet the Constitutional purest in him gave him pause to wonder if the U.S. Government was authorized to acquire new territory.

Last year the Keystone Pipeline was essentially killed because of environmental concerns.  This false argument was put forth by a liberal agenda in an attempt to prevent the development of environmentally "dirty" Canadian oil sands.

Meanwhile, conservative states continue to dream up new legislation to circumvent  Roe v. Wade and limit abortions:

http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/28/1911589/abortion-clinic-law-maps-out-details.html

Both liberals and conservatives are gaming the system.  Liberals cry out that a pipeline crossing an aquifer (already crossed by thousands of miles of pipeline) is an environmental disaster waiting to happen while conservatives demand ultrasounds and apply the same medical standards for arthroscopic knee sugary to  abortion clinics that conduct first trimester abortions.  Both arguments are Machiavellian at best and the vast majority of American's... The silent majority... go on with their lives while Republican's demand less government unless it suits their purposes and Democrats refuse to acknowledge the nearly 17 trillion dollar elephant in the room.

All of this goes on as Congress passes laws that are selectively enforced and  government agencies create and enforce their own rules and regulations, not to mention the "self-regulatory" agencies who come up with new ways to limit competition and promote protectionism in the guise of consumer protection.

Who ever actually coined the phrase "The Price of Liberty is eternal vigilance" hit the nail on the head... Unfortunately the silent majority is just that... Silent.

Foreign Assistance Act

Section 508 of the decades-old Foreign Assistance Act stipulates:

"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such country if the President determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office."

I've been following what has happened in Egypt and it's clear to me that Egypt's military removed the 1st ever democratically elected Egyptian President.  With this, I'm hopeful that our annual Egyptian aid of $1,500,000,0000 per year might be withheld until such time as a new democratically elected government is in place.

However, I'm worried that the Obama administration will once again selectively pick and choose which laws to enforce.  The law is clear, military take over = loss of aid.  Before you argue cutting aid will hurt innocent Egyptians, please understand that over 85% of our annual aid goes directly to the military and I don't know about you but does that really makes sense?

Are you sure we don't live in a Police State?

In the aftermath of the Asiana 214 crash I saw a boy, maybe 14 years old, being interviewed by the press in the terminal area.  Behind him a group of TSA and security officers were slowly moving closer and in short order a burly, serious looking officer interrupted the interview and abruptly asked  the boy "Were you on the flight that crashed?"  The boy said yes and the man grabbed him by the scruff, pulled him away from the reporters saying you have to come with me.

No big deal?  As soon as I saw how this young boy was treated I got angry.  What gives any government official the right to lay hands on someone, let alone a young boy and recent crash survivor?  If I was handled like that I would have thrown an absolute fit.  Turns out that those who walked away from the crash had to go through what was basically a four hour integration and search before they were released - while hundreds of concerned family members agonizingly waited to learn what happened to their loved ones. 

Seeing that young boy being bullied and basically hauled away angered me and it's my hope that the officer who did this be reprimanded... that is unless we really do live in a police state.

COLLECTING MORE DATA THAN YOU THINK

The Virginian-Pilot
© June 20, 2013

COLLECTING MORE DATA THAN YOU THINK

FOR 60 YEARS, the National Security Agency has been protecting the United States against foreign threats. Now, however, the NSA has focused on threats within the United States.

The Patriot Act and other laws have turned the financial industry into a massive data-collection arm of the government. Financial advisers are required to collect and submit volumes of data on our clients into searchable databases, ostensibly used to fight terrorism.

I just completed a project that was allegedly mandated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. It required 85 data points for every client registration. Data such as the name, address, Social Security number and date of birth have always been required, but now we collect and submit data such as the client's cash on hand, net worth, income, job title, employer and employer's address. I uploaded 52,000 data points on my clients onto a secure server on the Internet.

Knowing these requirements and that over half of all Americans have some type of financial investment, it's hard to imagine that the NSA or some other shadow government agency hasn't found a way to capture this data for future use. Years ago, this type of information was kept on paper, locked in filing cabinets and presented upon inspection. Now this data is very easily searchable.

This data collection is excessive and intrusive. The requirement that it now be available in databases is fraught with everyday security risks, let alone potential government or corporate abuse.

David Beemer
Virginia Beach

 

Congressman Scott is Right - Metadata will be abused

For sixty years the NSA has been protecting the US against foreign threats.  The huge flap now seems to be that external NSA efforts have become an internal effort since the 9-11 attacks.

Not being reported is how the Patriot Act and other regulations have turned the financial industry into a massive data collection arm of the government.  Advisers are required to collect and submit volumes of data on our clients into searchable data bases ostensibly to fight terrorism by knowing your client and preventing money laundering.  I just completed a project that was allegedly mandated by FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) which required 85 data points for every client registration.  Data such as the name, address, SSN, DOB has always been required but now we collect and submit data such as cash on hand, net worth, income, job title, employer, employer's address, etc...  For me it was over 52,000 data points which was uploaded to a secure server via the internet.

Knowing these requirements and that over half of all American's have some type of investment, it's hard to imagine that the NSA, CIA, DIA, I and A, FBI, INR, TFI or some other shadow government agency hasn't found a way to capture this META data for "future" use.  Years ago this data was kept on paper, locked in filing cabinets and presented upon inspection but due to changing requirements this data is now very much searchable.

I would argue this data collection is excessive, intrusive and the requirement that it now be available in database format fraught with everyday security risks, let alone potential government and/or corporate abuse.

David Beemer

Virginia Beach, VA
Investment Registered Representative since 1993

 Growth of Government

Today within the executive branch of the federal government there are fifteen cabinet secretaries. These are the Presidents men and women who in my mind run our country or at least our countries bureaucracy.  Each of these fifteen positions represent massive government agencies which in some cases date back to the founding of our country. There were initially four cabinet level positions which have morphed into what we have today.

My question is - are we better off as a country and are we more free because of the expansion of government? Regardless of this argument the result of government expansion is a collective federal debt of $16.7 trillion, so clearly financially we are NOT better off. Furthermore, a  third of these cabinet level agencies have been formed since 1965.  How did our nation survive almost 200 years without a third of it's leadership?

For starters, agencies who have failed to meet their mandates, after say 36 years, should be reviewed and likely eliminated.  I would consider these agencies to be among the most endangered:

15)  Department of Homeland Security (I think the name is super dumb) - est. 2002

14)  Department of Veterans Affairs - est. 1988

13)  Department of Education - est. 1976

12)  Department of Energy - est. 1977

10)  Department of Housing and Urban Development - est. 1965

There is one basic question that must be asked and answered of our elected officials if the United States is to continue as the economic, military and world leader. Is our federal government to big?  If so, what can be done about it?

Those on the right argue our government is too big. When agencies such as the IRS can't even audit their own books something has to give and that give is something that rarely (ever?) happens in Washington... The elimination of an entire government agency, lock, stock and barrel.

How can Congress Reduce the Cost of Gas?

For starters consider modify the Merchant Marine Act of 1920.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. It's better known as the Jones Act and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S. flaged ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. maritime industry.

It's clear that the last 93 years of "protecting" U.S. maritime industry hasn't worked.  At the very least Congress should modify the Merchant Marine Act to allow foreign shipping companies to fill in when there isn't a bonafide U.S. ship available.

What will this do?  It would allow oil companies to ship oil from the Gulf States to the East Coast verses West Africa.  Big deal?  You bet and it saves big money.  Right now there aren't enough U.S. ships to transport oil from the Gulf States so East Coast refineries are forced to buy oversea crude which is more expensive and in some cases ends up supporting governments that aren't supportive of  the United States.

The Federal Income Tax Turns 100!

The 16th amendment was passed and 100 years ago American's started paying income tax.  Initially there were 7 brackets starting at 1% with the top bracket being 7% on incomes over $11,000,000+ in today's dollars.  Right now nine states manage without any income tax (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, Tennessee, New Hampshire) and when Bobby Jindal, Gov. of Louisiana, announced his #1 legislative goal for 2013 was repealing his states income tax it only took days for him to back down and recant his extreme position.

More states are considering the repeal of their income tax  Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma and North Carolina are seriously considering this as way to compete with their neighbors and create jobs.  Maybe Governor Jindal should have started with corporate taxes?  I've talked to many Virginians about the idea that corporations shouldn't be taxed because they ultimately pass this cost onto consumers.  The feedback I’ve gotten has been quite positive.  People from various backgrounds and political views seem to innately understand the concept that corporations don't pay tax, people pay tax.

Virginia's legislative session is over, but as our elected officials file their returns I hope they appreciate our system is just too complicated at best and that the 100 year experiment has resulted, as predicted, in a government that knows no bounds.  Maybe, just maybe, it's time that once again Virginia take the lead and consider "extreme" tax reform.

Could Virginia stop taxing corporations?

I've talked to many Virginians about the idea that corporations shouldn't be taxed because they simply pass the cost of taxation onto consumers and the feedback I’ve gotten is very positive.  People from various backgrounds and political views seem to innately understand this concept.

For years North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have lured our civil service and military retirees to their states by exempting retirement pay from state income tax.  Why couldn't Virginia drop the bomb with corporate taxation, repeal it and successfully lure more businesses here?

I bet this sounds nuts, but right now nine states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, Tennessee, New Hampshire) don't have any income tax and Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma and North Carolina are seriously considering repealing theirs.  Furthermore, the nine states with out income tax refute the dire forecasts that eliminating income taxes will negatively impact schools, public safety and other social programs.  

If North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have figured out they can net more revenue by luring retirees why can't Virginia do the same with corporations.  It's a bold idea but one deserving of consideration.  I'm not a native Virginian, but I've lived here since 1991, raised two daughters and put them through state universities.  I'm proud of Virginia, consider this home and I understand if your not growing, it's only a matter of time before you decline.

** Update **

Scratch Louisiana from the list.  Gov. Bobby Jindal scraps his plan only days after announcing it.  Turns out that what works in nine states is TOO EXTREME for Louisiana.  "Governor, you’re moving too fast, and we aren’t sure that your plan is the best way to do it,” is what Gov. Jindal indicates he's been hearing. 

New Virgina State Budget Allots 50% to Education

As the North Carolina legislature debates the possibility of phasing out their state income tax, our elected leaders comment Virginia shouldn't consider reform because we are #1 in so many areas. While true in general, in many cases Virginia's numbers are skewed by Northern Virginia's proximity to Washington and Hampton Roads being home of the largest military complex in the world.

Education is one area that Virginia isn't overtly impacted by the federal government.  Regardless of the spin put out by our State Department of Education or what you may read in local papers, the 2012 SAT scores matched up with our 2010 national ranking of 33rd.  That's right, our awesome Vo-Tech kids aside, Virginia's educational product came in 33rd while spending 50% of the Common Wealth's budget, not including city and county contributions.

What makes matters worse... and I'm guessing, Virginia's SAT results are likely propped up by a large population of private and home schooled kids.  As North Carolina rethinks basic government principles, it's time that Virginian figure out why we are getting such a poor return on our educational dollar.  The political mantra of throwing more money at the problem needs to change and a real solution found to raise our national SAT ranking above 33rd. 

July 2010 State Education Rankings: Virginia SAT Scores

Critical Reading SAT Score: 511 (Ranking 32)
Math SAT Score: 512 (Ranking 35)
Writing SAT Score: 498 (Ranking 32)

Total SAT Score: 1521 (Ranking 33)

More Individual Health Care Insurance

        More Individual Health Care Insurance

Dr. Ben Carson's ideas on healthcare are intriguing.  Recently, I stumbled upon a similar idea from a brilliant young woman who is at the very epicenter of health care billing and technology.

She explained that a fundamental shift from group plans to individual plans is what's needed to effect reform.  She believes that group plans, which most of us seem to want, are actually what's wrong with our current system.  That without group plans; health insurance would be sold individually like auto insurance.  Individual plans would result in "one" price and costs would come down as consumers actually participated in their healthy care decisions.

Unfortunately, the Affordable Health Care Act doesn’t take free market forces into consideration and does little to fix the core problems of our current bloated, disjointed and blotchy patch work of insurance and providers.  If Dr. Carson is right, maybe injecting free market principles into our health care is what's needed.