Protest! Protest! Protest!

Happy New Year! Imagine my surprise when I realized that I haven't posted a political blog since last July! One of my New Years resolutions for 2015 is to blog more frequently this year than last. So, I'm writing my first blog this year on January 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th.   Here lies the problem, time is going by too fast!  

The news story that caught my eye this year was the demonstrations in Ferguson, New York, and elsewhere.  Like many of you, I became very suspicious as I noticed the professionally printed signs being carried by some of the protesters. I wrote down the organizations, piecing together a small list: Peoples Power Assemblies, New Black Panthers, RevCom.US, and Occupy. Not surprisingly, when I Googled, most were affiliated with communist organizations.  

But, we live in a free country which means everyone has the right to protest, even communists, who openly support destroying our country. Right? But here is the problem. Well intentioned protesters, with legitimate concerns, are being hijacked by communists and anarchists who couldn't care less about peaceful protest, Michael Brown or Eric Gardner. Their sole purpose is to disrupt, instigate riots, destroy property and cause chaos. Their ultimate goal is to destroy this country by destroying its government. 

In 2014, I think the media was dishonestly silent about who the organizers and leaders are within these violent groups. In my opinion, the media failed to do their job by not explaining why these communist and anarchist groups were a major part of these demonstrations.   

What a protest or demonstration is meant to do is bring attention to objectionable situations or policy.  After all the demonstrations across the country, it is still not clear to many Americans what is actually going on. That’s because the details in the deaths of Gardner and Brown don’t justify the reaction of thousands protesting across the country. And the physical and verbal violence of the protesters are more frightening than the police action.  

After several months of vetting the dialog, I believe two reasons emerged for the angry protests. Black people believe the cases (Brown/Gardner) point to a systemic problem with justice in America, and there is a sense of institutional racism in America.  

Whether we believe it or not doesn’t matter, what matters is that 13% of Americans feel stuck in poverty and without hope. That’s what matters. I ask you, if instead, this situation were a natural disaster, or an apartment building fire, or a large industrial accident, wouldn’t you expect Americans to rally around and help? The answer is, of course, yes. 

But, there is another problem. Who wants to help a people who arrogantly defy you, who refuse to obey the laws of the land, who call the police pigs and advocate killing them just because they are police? Who wants to help people who have received enormous financial benefits and address our nation as Amerikkka, who advocate the violent overthrow of our government and blame us for their predicament just because of our color?  

Because of the protests, the divide between blacks and all other races have widened substantially.   Offering to organize and teach how to antagonize, riot, burn and loot, Communists and Anarchists stand smiling like Cheshire cats. They have thrived on the unrest and they are hell-bent on making things even worse.  

Communist Radical Lisa Fithian in Saint Louis organizing, and teaching protestors in the art of antagonism.

Oprah Winfrey applauded blacks for taking to the streets in protest of Brown/Gardner. But lamented the lack of leadership in the black community saying, "What I'm looking for is some kind of leadership to come out of this to say, 'This is what we want. This is what has to change, and these are the steps that we need to take to make these changes, and this is what we're willing to do to get it.’"  Because Winfrey expressed her desire for leaders and solutions, she was hammered on Twitter by thousands of ungracious respondents. I’m afraid the rioters, looters and burners don’t want resolution.  They love their hate and want to bask in their unrighteous behavior.  

I’d like to end this blog with a positive thought by siding with Winfrey.  I hope 2015 will be the year strong leadership emerges within the Black community and they determine the necessary changes and commitments to make it happen. When that happens, they will be embraced whole-heartedly by the remaining 87% of Americans. 

California Water Crisis

A couple of weeks ago CBS evening news reported that an estimated 1,700 farm jobs could be lost as more than 620 square miles of farmland will go unplanted.  This didn't’ surprise me.  When we drove I-5 this year much of the San Joaquin Valley looked more like desert than farm land.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture expects produce prices to rise by up to 5 percent, adding $500 to the average American family’s grocery bill.   

However, CBS’s report failed to mention that much of the economic consequences of the drought could have been avoided. In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt - a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.  

Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay - eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.  

Rather than suspend this policy to protect an endangered three-inch Delta smelt, President Obama chose to continue the federal water policy of releasing water for smelt instead of using that water to irrigate croplands in California.   

This country is blessed with some of the richest water resources in the world.  The United States has 22,000 liters per capita per day, more than enough water for ten times the current population.  For us, it is just a matter of getting the resources to where it is needed.  The lack of long term vision to build water storage facilities and canals to transport water is nothing more than bad government.

All of this will play out in a future crisis for the climate control lobby who can’t wait, I’m sure, to claim higher food prices are the result of climate change. The green lobby has stopped any constructive projects that would collect and save water resources for decades, while advocating we must ration our existing resources with an ever growing population.  

Droughts are never good, but the bright side of the California drought is it may finally drive some sense into our lawmakers, who hopefully are beginning to recognize the need for a more balanced ecology.  One that is slightly tilted towards favoring human beings.

Adams-Farwell' Automobile

Instead of the crank shaft turning inside the engine, the engine spins around the crankshaft!

Great story!

Scrap Public Unions

Unions in the private sector are fine but unions in the public sector should be forbidden.  Wages for public sector jobs should be set according to private sector jobs.  It is a conflict of interest for our lawmakers, who represent the citizens, to be  negotiating with unions and setting the wage scale.  

IRS Records Department

There was some question recently how long we needed to keep records of our tax returns.  My very efficient X-bookkeeper (my wife) decided to look it up at www. IRS.gov.  How long should you keep records?  Here is their answer.

 

How long should I keep records?

The length of time you should keep a document depends on the action, expense, or event the document records. Generally, you must keep your records that support an item of income or deductions on a tax return until the period of limitations for that return runs out.

The period of limitations is the period of time in which you can amend your tax return to claim a credit or refund, or that the IRS can assess additional tax. The below information contains the periods of limitations that apply to income tax returns. Unless otherwise stated, the years refer to the period after the return was filed. Returns filed before the due date are treated as filed on the due date.

Note: Keep copies of your filed tax returns. They help in preparing future tax returns and making computations if you file an amended return.

1. You owe additional tax and situations (2), (3), and (4), below, do not apply to you; keep records for 3 years.

2. You do not report income that you should report, and it is more than 25% of the gross income shown on your return; keep records for 6 years.

3. You file a fraudulent return; keep records indefinitely.  (Uh-huh, sure!)

4. You do not file a return; keep records indefinitely.

5. You file a claim for credit or refund* after you file your return; keep records for 3 years from the date you filed your original return or 2 years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later.

6. You file a claim for a loss from worthless securities or bad debt deduction; keep records for 7 years.

7. Keep all employment tax records for at least 4 years after the date that the tax becomes due or is paid, whichever is later.

The following questions should be applied to each record as you decide whether to keep a document or throw it away.

Interesting, isn't it, how more serious the IRS is about your record keeping than there own!  

 JJ

Immigration Reform

I am for immigration reform, I really am.  But I am not in favor of the current immigration bill passed by the Senate.  That would be the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. 

SB 744. has some good point  and I applaud the Senate - especially Senate Republicans - for their effort.  For instance, the path to citizenship requires over $2000 in fines and thirteen years before an illegal immigrant can even begin to apply for citizenship.  There is other stuff too like obeying the laws, learn the english language, and pay taxes, which a illegal immigrant must do before applying for citizenship.  

Some would say that any path to citizenship is amnesty, but I don't think that's true.  Thirteen years of paying taxes and steep fines for the wrongdoing is punishment enough.  It would be easier for them to go back to their country and start over.  And many probably would, saving us the cost or need to deport them.  In the end, many would not apply for citizenship either, and never be eligible to vote or receive any government assistance - including Social Security.  The bill also makes border security mandatory before any issues of the illegals can be addresses.   

Well then, what's the problem?  The bill is too big!  Unfortunately, the bill, 844 pages by my count (some say 1200 pages) is far too large for anyone to really understand.  And there lies the problem.  Like the infamous Obama Care bill, this bill is so big, and so complicated that, well, we won’t know how it will all work until it gets passed.  That’s plain crazy. 

There are five major parts to this bill.  The House should divided SB 744 into five separate bills, simplify and refine them. then pass them individually.  That way everybody, illegals, law enforcement, Congress and citizens like you and me can read the bills and understand them.  

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!”

In The Waiting Room of a Car Dealership

In the waiting room of a car dealership the other day, while waiting for service, I became captive to the brand new Katie Couric Show. Katie’s guest was talking about the Fiscal Cliff and gridlock in Congress.  Her comment to her guest was,  “I don’t even know what the Fiscal Cliff is about!”  

The car dealership receptionist, who was also part of the captive audience, responded,  “I’m with Katie, I have no idea what this Fiscal Cliff is either.”  

“Well,”  I said  “I wouldn’t use Katie Couric as your political roll model.”  

“I do!”  she responded a little offended.  Oops.

I felt bad she had chosen to aligned herself with the uninformed.  But, unfortunately,  Katie Couric and the receptionist aren’t alone.  Most Americans have no clue what Congress and the President are fighting about, nor do they wish to complicate their lives by attempting to understand the gravity of the situation that our country is in.    

Unlike abortion or same-sex marriage, which have very little influence on the lives of most Americans, what Congress and the President do about the Fiscal Cliff will impact everyone.  

First of all, the crisis is misnamed.  It isn’t a cliff.  It is a self imposed deadline mandated by Congress to correct government overspending.  The deadline was imposed by Congress much as you or I might decide to go on a diet.  

We know that in order to lose weight we must go on a diet and exercise.  So, we set a date to start a diet.  On that day, we will begin exercising and quit eating so much food.  But as that date nears, we become fearful and regret our commitment.   We may even hedge a bit and decide to not start the diet just yet - until things settle down in our lives.

That is exactly what is going on right now with Congress and the President.  As the day approaches, they fear the consequences.  If they decrease government spending, it will kill many jobs and lower incomes for millions of Americans.  And, if they increase revenue, by raising taxes, it will also kill many jobs and lower incomes for millions of Americans.  Just like a diet, lowering our deficit means tightening our belt.  A good measure of both decreases in spending and increases in taxes are necessary if it's going to work.  And that is what the "Fiscal Cliff" does.     

The worst thing we could do for our Country is not go on the diet, or to do so little that it has no effect.  And you know what?  That seems to be just where Congress is headed.    

   

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

My son John, who is generally skeptical about such things pointed out that there might just be a media conspiracy surrounding Christmas.  At the beginning of each holiday shopping season, there is nothing but positive news about the economy.  And then, shortly after Christmas, he said, we are told how dismal the shopping season was for retailers.   Never noticed?  Well, yes, come to think of it - that's true!

On October 2, 2012 the Associated Press writer Anne D’innocenzio’s article was picked up.  The headlines read, Retail Sales Prediction: 4.1% higher than 2012.  In the article  D’innocenzion points out, “[This year] is higher than the average growth of 3.5 percent for November and December over the past 10 years.”  Pretty impressive.

A few days later on October 15, 2012 Marketplace published Jeff Horwich’s piece.  He wrote, “consumer sales rose 1.1% last month because Americans are more confident and that due to stock prices and home prices both giving consumers more confidence.  

A month later, November 14th, NBC headlines read, Chamber of Commerce Data Shows Retail Sales on the Rise. The article quotes North Carolina Regional Chamber of Commerce President Timothy Hulbert who says, “We have come back from the so called great recession and the tepid recovery that has occurred since that recession and so, we are looking forward to a good holiday shopping season.  

And then on December 13^th, another Associated Press article written by Martin Crutsinger headlined, U.S. Retailers Sales rose .3 percent in November.  Crutsinger said “figures were much stronger after factoring lower gas prices. When excluding a large drop in gas station sales, retail sales increased a solid 0.8 percent”.  

I picked these four articles to typify what was being written before Christmas.  The media was swamped with rosy news about the season.  After Christmas, yesterday, something snapped and the media was filled with articles of doom and gloom.  You probably read or hear news like this headline from Reuters which proclaimed, “U.S. retailers scramble after lackluster holiday sales.”  

Is this a conspiracy?  It certainly is.  It is an unspoken sinister plot between the news media outlets and retailers who conspire to promote sales by showing a robust and growing economy which makes people feel good and spend money.  

There were many articles written which predicted a poor shopping season but those articles weren’t picked up by the news media.  The articles that were picked up and widely promoted and published, were the articles that were upbeat and positive.  After all, retailers are not going to place ads on networks or in newspapers that predict doom and gloom.  Knowing this the news media selects and publishes news which will enhance the sales of their advertisers.  

After the shopping season the illusion ends, and the media outlets revert back to the stark reality in which we live.  The economy is poor, good jobs are scarce and the future is dark.  Until next year, when the hype begins anew.