Strengthen the Presidency?

I really appreciate articles that strive to improve our federal government, because they are more concerned with fixing problems than blasting opponents.  I'll give David Brooks, New York Times Op-Ed columnist, points for trying, with his recent article, Strengthen the Presidency.  

In his article, David suggested that a stronger executive branch could overcome the gridlock of government and enable the nation to develop the necessary reforms to deal with todays issues.  His reasoning is that the presidency can mobilize and organize quickly; has abundant specialized knowledge to deal with the problems; and it is more immune to political pressures and influence. 

While his reasons about the executive branch are partly true, I oppose this solution as would most Americans.  Dictatorships are very efficient and as one commented on his article, maybe we should just crown a king.  If maximum efficiency of government is all we are looking for then maybe he has a point.  However, our government is based on democracy which necessary makes governing more cumbersome and less efficient.  And that is why so many believe in limited government.

My thoughts are more in line with President and Founder James Madison, who said, “Numerous bodies are less subject to venality and corruption,” which pretty much nixes "more power to the president".  The smaller the body where power resides, the greater the chance for corruption.  George Washington understood this and declined the offer to become King of the United States.  

Our founders took Madison's admonition seriously and built in checks and balances to limit the dominance of any one branch of government.  Increasing the number of representatives in the people's house, as the nation grew, was another way to assure power would never be concentrated in just a few.  Unfortunately, in 1913 Congress thought it best to permanently maintain the number of representatives at 435 members. (The actual law was passed in 1929.)  From then to now, the people's power has been slowly slipping away.

The average size of a congressional district today is 710,767 - more than triple the average district size (225,500) of 1910.  From an individual’s prospective, citizens influence has diminished by two-thirds. 

What does this have to do with how our government runs?  The influence we lost (and continue to lose) didn’t just disappear.  It transferred from citizens to those willing to buy influence with money.  Corporations, unions, political pacs, foreign governments all compete for that 2/3 influence with money. 

My solution to fixing our federal government is not to increase the power of the presidency but to restore the power to the people by creating smaller congressional districts as was originally intended.  

A Glimmer of Hope!

I had a email from a friend in Colorado who was excited about the victories he has  shared by being involved in the grassroots Second Amendment effort responsible for  the recall of two Democrat state senators. They promoted and voted for the radical, job-destroying gun-control measure that ended up passing a year ago. 

The passing of the gun control law was funded by billionaire, gun-grabbing Michael Bloomberg, who dumped tons of cash and lobbying expertise into Colorado, making this another example of how lobbyist work to pass bills contrary to the people. With deep pockets they managed to persuade enough state representatives to adopt new gun-rights restrictions.   

Lobbying is an important part of our government, which is why I don’t support banning the practice. The majority of Lobbyists are like expert witnesses in a court trial, offering valuable insights and knowledge on issues that help our elected officials create legislation to govern. It’s when special interest groups use this lobbying tool to unduly influence legislators that it becomes a problem. In Colorado, this has backfired and those who supported the recent gun control measure are now being held accountable. Unfortunately, Colorado’s grassroots effort is the exception not the rule.  

As our states and nation become more populous, governing becomes more and more complicated. Some suggest term limits as a way to keep legislators focused on the will of their constituents. I do not believe that is the answer. Creating restrictions on the people’s representatives will only serve to strengthen big money, not the people. To level the playing field we need smaller districts which make our representatives more accountable. Smaller districts will return the control to the people.  

Diminish the Lobbyists’ Influence

In 2008, there were nearly 15,000 registered lobbyist in the United States, equal to 28 lobbyist for each of our 535 Congressmen.  (By “Congressmen” here, I am referring to both Senators and Representatives.)  That same year, these lobbyists reported spending over $3.2 billion, which is equivalent to spending more than $6 million per Congressman.  Though not all of that spending was lavished on the Congressmen, these totals do provide a reliable measure of the extent to which various special and foreign interests are purchasing political influence.  This explains why we now have a government that is of, by, and for the Special Interests.

Senator Baucus and Elizabeth Fowler 

As an example of how much influence lobbyist have, consider Elizabeth Fowler, former Vice President of Public Policy at WellPoint.  Her job - in other words, overseeing WellPoint’s lobbying and other government-influencing activities.   Wellpoint is, of course, the largest health insurer in the country.  

In 2008, she left her job to go to work for Senator Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee as his Chief Health Counsel.   This is what Senator Baucus had to say about her.  “I want to single out one person,” he said. “Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. … She put together the White Paper last November 2008, [the] 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came. She is an amazing person. She is a lawyer; she is a Ph.D. She is just so decent. She is always smiling, she is always working, always available to help any Senator, any staff. I just thank Liz from the bottom of my heart.”

Not only was Senator Baucus happy, happy, happy, so was the entire health industry.   Liz Fowler gave the health care industry exactly what they wanted - higher profits and no competition from alternative  non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.  Instead, Obamacare  protected the interest of the health care industry, especially insurers and the pharmaceutical companies. 

After the bill passed the House and Senate, Liz Fowler was brought over to the White House to oversee the new law’s implementation.  She served first at the Department of Health and Human Services and then became Special Assistant to the President for Healthcare and Economical Policy.  Last December 2012, Liz Fowler left the White House and took a job with Johnson & Johnson in their Government Affairs and Policy Group.  

So, who’s the big winner?  Big pharma and big health care providers.  The loser?  Isn’t it obvious?  It’s us, the American people.

Shaky Ground

It seems the President is on shaky ground relying on his election as a mandate that the American people want Obama Care.  Just because the media has taken up his cause doesn’t mean the President is right.  There were other elections last year that mandate quite the opposite point of view.  The Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives comes to mind.  Polls today still show Obama Care as extremely unpopular, and that is consistent with how Americans have voted - and will continue to vote.  

There are 314 million citizens in the U.S. who are divided into 435 congressional districts.  Each of these district consist of approximately 720,000 citizens.  And every two years these congressional districts elect a person to represent them in our national government.   In 2012, the country elected 240 Republicans (55.7%) and 191 Democrats (44.3%) to the House of Representatives.  That is a mandate greater than the President’s.  His margin was only 51.1% to Romney’s 47.2%.  

The Republican majority in the house has every right and reason to carry out the wishes of the majority of the American people by getting rid of Obama Care.  It is why they were elected.  The left may roll their eyes and shake their heads declaring that battle is over and the Supreme Court has ruled the law is constitutional.  But that is hardly the issue.   

The Senate is not representative of the States.  It has 100 members - two senators from each state.  Only forty-two of them are Republicans, fifty-six of them are Democrats, two are Independent (but caucus with the Democrats).  Unlike the House of Representatives, who are to represent the people, Senators are to represents the States.  Unfortunately, they don’t because the majority of states are Republican. 

Thirty of the fifty states have Republican Governors.  In twenty-nine states Republicans are the majority in the lower house and thirty-two states Senates have Republican majorities.  The majority of the states are controlled by Republicans not Democrats.  The U.S. Senate clearly is out of step with the nation and represents neither the people nor the states.     

Currently, the government shut down is very unpopular with Americans because they see it as detrimental to the economy.   And so far, Republicans more than Democrats are being blamed.  Republicans stated their position, lowered their position, and then lowered it again to no avail.  The President and the Senate staunchly refuses to negotiate.  Even as the debt ceiling limit closes in, Democrats refuse to negotiate telling the lower house they must either comply or be responsible for economic chaos.  

Republicans are loosing the propaganda war thanks to a bias media.  If they must relent to an unbending presidency in order to save the economy, you can bet Republicans will sacrifice, suffer defeat and save the economy.  A year from now, however, when Obama Care proves to be as inept and expensive as predicted, Democrat heads will be on the chopping block for their arrogance.  And you can bet the voters who elected 30 Republican governors, 32 Republican majority state senates, 29 Republican majority state houses and sent 240 Republicans to Congress will give no quarter. 

The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 - Another bad idea!

I have neglected my political blog for quite a while.  Listening to and reading about all the murder trial nonsense while our legislators consider bad bills which give political or economic advantage to a few over the majority of citizens, makes me sick. 

 I don't believe it's our job to have to scrutinize each and every bill that moves through congress.  We live in a republic and elect representatives to fulfill that task on our behalf.   Most of the time that system works, but more and more  it seems our representatives are being influenced by special interest instead of their constituents.

H.R 684 is one of those bills that makes me ill.  It's sponsors call it the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 and it is anything but fair.  A month or so ago I received an alert from eBay about this bill.  If you have an eBay account you probably did too.  They pointed out the implications of H.R. 684 and asked that I sign a on-line petition and contact my Representatives - I did both.  

I never heard from my two Senators.  Not surprisingly, the Senate passed this bill.  I haven't checked to see how Senators Murray and Cantwell voted.  Yesterday,  I received a response from Cathy McMorris Rodgers thanking me for my concern and well... I posted her e-letter below so you can read it for yourself.

HOME

|

SERVICES

|

BLOG

|

ISSUES

|

NEWSROOM

Dear Mr. Jeffers: Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 684, the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013. It is an honor to represent the people of Eastern Washington and I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me. The Internet has revolutionized the way we receive information, communicate, and shop. Yet, at the same time, it has brought a host of new issues that have not been dealt with previously, including online taxation. H.R. 684 would allow states to require online-retailers to collect sales tax and remit those proceeds to the home state of the purchaser. Undoubtedly, allowing a state to levy a tax on an online business transaction increases the overall price a consumer pays and increases the operating and compliance cost for the online-retailer.  However, the implementation of an online sales tax would certainly help level the playing field for small community businesses, which already collect and remit sales tax. Be assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind should H.R. 684 come before me in the House of Representatives.  Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. As your Representative in Congress, I am committed to putting the best interests of Eastern Washington first. I invite you to visit my website at www.mcmorrisrodgers.house.gov for additional information or to sign up for my e-newsletter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Best Wishes, Cathy McMorris RodgersMember of Congress P.S. For daily updates, subscribe to my Facebook and Twitter news feeds.

All in all, it is a very nice letter, after all what wrong with paying sales tax?  Right?  

Well, nothing except this bill requires citizens to pay 56 billion additional sales tax than they do currently.  Proponents argue that citizens should be paying this anyway, suggesting maybe citizens are illegally avoiding paying sales tax.  A supreme court ruling (1992 before internet) stated businesses are not required to collect taxes if they do not have a "physical presents" in the state.  That law still stands but H.R. 684 will change that.   As one citizen stated, our Congress can't get together to pass a budget but they will find ways to add taxes at the drop of a hat. 

Not only will this bill take 56 billion dollars out of consumer's pockets but it will add huge overhead through additional regulation  to businesses.  That cost will  be passed on to the consumers as well through higher prices.   This bill requires businesses to collect sales tax in every state they sell stuff - regardless of their physical presence.  

The bill conveniently overlooks all the problems that will occur by assuring us the federal government will produce (at no charge) software for companies to use. What other problems could there be?  Being required to collecting taxes for  a state your not associated with is huge.  What if there is a dispute about how much taxes you collected?  Is that state allowed to audit your books? This bill doesn't really explain how that would work.  Or, would it be the federal government that will audit your books to ensure you pay each state their taxes?  Either way, this bill grows government and multiplies the burden of doing business by 50 times.  Even if you live in a state that doesn't have a sales tax you would be required to collect for all the ones that do.

The bill's preamble reads: "To restore States' sovereign rights to enforce state and local sale and use tax laws, and for other purposes."   Since when has the federal government been interested in the states' sovereign rights?   This bill only serves to further restrict the freedom of the American economy which is what "for other purposes" must mean.  

It is important to recognize who supports this bill and is pushing hard to get it passed.  It is large multi-state big box businesses like Target, and the National Retailers Federation (which includes Walmart, Kmart, J.C. Penny Co, Sears, and others.)  It is also supported by Amazon the largest online retailer in the world.  They already have a presences in most states and accordingly pay sales taxes in those states.  So why are they so concerned about online sellers collecting sales tax? 

eBay has taken up the cause for small sellers - of whom I am one.  There are literally hundreds of thousands of individuals who sell through eBay and other services like etsy.com.  These sites and other independent sites sell everything from art and crafts, new stuff and second hand items.   eBay alone generates 72.2  billion dollars per year globally.  Add in the hundreds of thousands of other small sellers and you can see why the big box stores are interested in getting rid of all these pesky little sellers.  I guess getting a bill passed that crushes your competition is what Marketplace Fairness is all about.

In my opinion, this legislation is a first step to marginalize eBay and other online retailers.  The next step would be to require eBay along with everyone else to collect taxes on all sales generated.  That would end it for most of the little guys and leave the big box retailers a clear playing field.  

The Sequesters are here! Whoopty-do!

Saturday, March 2, 2013 and the humungous 2.85% reduction-in-spending-increase ax has fallen upon us all - or shall I say on our government.  I didn’t hear any large crash in the night, did you?  Okay, okay the President did say in his radio broadcast today that the decreases (I refuse to use the term cuts) won’t be felt immediately.  But, he assures that middle class families will begin to “have their lives disrupted in significant ways.” He said that as long as the cuts stay in effect, Americans will know that the economy could have been better had they been averted.  "The pain, though, will be real," Obama said.  And you know what?  I believe him.  

I believe him because the President is not a nice man.  He is a bully when he wins and look out when he loses!  He will not let Congress off the hook for allowing the sequester to take effect.  He will see to it that the most vulnerable Americans among us “hurt” to make his point - the sequester was a mistake.  

If unemployment goes up, or a massive layoff is imminent, or the stock market falls, it will be because of the sequester.  If Iran (I should probably say when Iran) develops the bomb, it will be because of the sequester.  When the next weather event occurs, you guessed it, it will be because those nasty Republicans allowed the sequester to occur.  Any glitch in the next two years will be the fault of the sequester.

Over the course of his presidency, Obama has used his campaign skills, his cabinet, and even the press to effectively coerce Congress into passing legislation by scaring the bejeebers out of gullible citizens.  This time Congress bulked, citizens slept, and the President didn’t get his way. 

Saturday, after the sequester went into effect, the President said there was still time to find a smarter solution to the nation's debt problem.  "I still believe we can and must replace these cuts with a balanced approach - one that combines smart spending cuts with entitlement reform and changes to our tax code that make it more fair for families and businesses without raising anyone's tax rates.”  No one can argue with that, Mr President, but the trouble is none of that was part of your "balanced approach" before the sequester.  You have never mentioned entitlement reforms.    

Ben Hallman, Senior Financal Writer for the Huffington Post agrees, it wasn’t clear what Obama meant by “balanced approach.”  He wrote, “So what perks, exactly, does Obama want to cut?  The president has avoided going into much detail, but public statements and a recent White House policy paper suggest these likely priorities.”  Hallman then speculates on what the President could have meant.   You can read his article at the Huffington Post Web site for the details. 

Interestingly, vague proposals, like the one above, is another tool the President has used while in office.  He never offers his leadership to solve a problem.  He leaves that to Congress, which has confounded Republican Speaker Boehner more than once.  On spending cuts and entitlement reform, we can expect more of the same. The President will let the Congress propose cuts, which he will oppose  - so he can appear the hero and Congress the villain.   

As far as closing the loopholes in the tax code, both Speaker Beohner and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed with the President to close loopholes - just not as a trade-off for tax cuts.  Good thinking gentlemen.

The Sequester Fester

President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, pressured Congress to find a way to avoid the sequester.  In the President's radio address this past weekend, he said the sequester would be "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole."  The President’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer warned that "devastating" sequester cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security, (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."    

So, how much will the sequester cut from the budget you ask?  This year, 2013, the Federal Government is expected to spend $3.8 trillion dollars.  The government will collect  $2.9 trillion in taxes.  The difference, $901.4 billion, will be added to our our current 16.3 trillion dollar debt. 

The sequester, as it turns out, cuts a whole $85 billion dollars in 2013 or 2.24% of total spending. The defense budget for 2013 is 900 billion dollars.  The sequester will require a 42.7 billion dollar cut in defense spending or 4.74% from their budget.  Now here is what’s hard to take, the federal government has been growing their budget  4.64% on average each year since 2007.

So, to put this in perspective, if you made 50,000 dollars last year and were told your pay increase this year would only be $1,200 instead of $2,320 how “devastating” would that be?  You might be disappointed but it certainly wouldn't put your household finances in “economic peril!”

2nd Amendment Rights vs. Media Control?

Sometime today President Biden will announce to the President and the public a proposal to curb the shootings in our schools and other public haunts.  Sadly, the major focus will be on weapons and ammunition.  There will be some concern for more security in our schools and better care of the less stable people in our society.
    

What won’t be included in Biden’s proposal is anything that addresses the entertainment industry’s moral wickedness which they subject society to through films, television programing, computer gaming and even advertising.

Televised violence is known to have severe effects on all audience groups, be it children or adults.  Before you agree to limiting your 2^nd amendment rights, consider the following excerpts from some studies on the subject. 

1.  “Prior to this study, it had already been well established that television influences many kinds of attitudes and behaviors by modeling them as appropriate and/or desirable. A highly successful multi-billion dollar advertising industry is built on that premise. More specifically, violence on television has been shown in hundreds of studies to have an influence on aggressive behavior. Over the past 20 years, numerous respected academic and public health organizations and agencies — including the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the National Institute of Mental Health — have reviewed the existing body of evidence in this area and have unanimously affirmed the validity of that conclusion. Three main effects of viewing televised violence have been noted in the literature: learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors, desensitization to violence, and increased fear of becoming victimized by violence.” ¹

2.  “Media violence poses a threat to public health inasmuch as it leads to an increase in real-world violence and aggression. Research shows that fictional television and film violence contribute to both a short-term and a long-term increase in aggression and violence in young viewers. Television news violence also contributes to increased violence, principally in the form of imitative suicides and acts of aggression. Video games are clearly capable of producing an increase in aggression and violence in the short term, although no long-term longitudinal studies capable of demonstrating long-term effects have been conducted. The relationship between media violence and real-world violence and aggression is moderated by the nature of the media content and characteristics of and social influences on the individual exposed to that content. Still, the average overall size of the effect is large enough to place it in the category of known threats to public health.” ²

3.  ^“According to a report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in the year 2000, violence (in the form of homicide, suicide, and trauma) is a leading cause of death amongst children, adolescents as well as young adults. It is a more prevalent cause than diseases like cancer or congenital disorders. 

The top consumers or the heavy consumers of violent television programs are males in the age group of 18 to 34, followed by females in the same age group. 

According to research done by Huston in the year 1992, by the time a child is eighteen years old, he/she has already witnessed 200,000 acts of violence including 40,000 murders on television. 

Since the early fifties over one thousand studies have been carried out about the effects of violence on television and in the movies. A majority of these studies conclude that children who are exposed to considerable amounts of television violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior. 

According to research done by Buchanan in the year 2000, children who watch more television or even play more video games are exposed to more media violence and tend to exhibit more aggressive tendencies amongst their peers. 

According to Denis McQuail's theory published in 2002, violence from media, especially television is encoded in the cognitive map of viewers and subsequent viewing of television violence helps to maintain aggressive thoughts, ideas and behavior.

Most of the children in the age group of two to five years watch television for an average of 31 hours each week, which is equivalent to more than four hours of television viewing per day. No wonder, impressionable young minds are falling prey to the element of violence present on the television.” ³

¹National Television Violence Study Vol 3, Executive Summary 

²The Role of Media Violence in Violent Behavior

³Facts about Television Violence

Laurel & Hardy - The Great Compromise! Coming Soon!

Democrat Stanley Laurel (left) and Republican Oliver Hardy

Well, Stanley, just look at the mess you and your Democrat friends have gotten us into this time!  You just tax, tax, tax!  And now, the voters are very upset!  

“Yes Ollie, we certainly are in a pickle, aren’t we.  But you got it all wrong.  We Democrats just gave the voters the biggest tax reduction in history!"  

"Democrat tax reductions!  Why you listen to me, Stanley, those were Bush Tax cuts and that was our idea!   You were against the tax cuts, remember?"

"Yes, we were against it, but now we're for it!"

"So now Stanley, we don't have any more money, so, we have no choice but to cut our spending!"

"Well Ollie, we won't have to do that  because we Democrats voted to make the rich pay for everything!" 

"We can't do that!  Soon they will be as poor as us!  Then what will we do, Stanley?"

“Olliver, I’ve got an idea.”  

“All right Stanley, let’s hear it.”

“If we are out of Money, why don’t we just print some more?  Then you can pay our debt, and I can spend all I want, and the voters won't have to give us a dime!"

“Why Stanley, I think that's a great idea!”

“Thank you Oliver, I’m glad you like it!”