Our founding fathers envisaged life which did not allow the government to dictate one's religious mores or to place the citizens in such classes as lords, commoners and the like. They were determined in their desire to assure that all were treated equitably, insisting in the Constitution they developed that wealth would not be redistributed by the government. Our politicians have warped these intents drastically. The requirement that religion not be addressed has been changed to require that non-christian religions be afforded preeminence. The maintenance of equitable treatment of all citizens has been changed to class the citizens as taxpayers and politicians, with taxpayers treated as peons and politicians extablished as lords. At first, the federal politicians dictated that anyone elected to federal office automatically received preferential treatment of escalating retirement income and health benefits far better than those afforded we peons, and that these benefits be extended for life. Not to be outdone, our state and local politicians have adopted similar benefits, as have some groups of citizens -- UAW and AARP, for example -- with the result that an ever increasing number of beneficiaries is being provided added benefits by a dwindling few.
In a country which prides itself on fairness, conditions must change. Firstly, no one should attain lifetime medical and retirement benefits for being elected to an office. All citizens must be treated equitably, with medical and retirement equality; benefits for one group must suffice for all. Medical benefits rather than being provided by certain empoyers must be available without regard to employer.
A first step in the approach to fairness should be deemphasis of the importance of political positions. Term limits for all politicians can level the playing field by insuring that government employment is only a short portion of one's working life, and requiring that medical and retirement benefits be allocated as in civilian service is essential. Secondly, it is essential that a method be devised to require that politicians be punished when they fail to abide by their oath to uphold our Constitution.
20090406Did our founding fathers form a government of lords and commoners as was that in England? Didn't they preface the Constitution with a statement that all men are created equal? How can we have a government of elites with lifetime privileged health programs and retirement plans far better than those available to the masses? Is it the lot of the peons to provide such expensive wherewithal for the professional politicians? I think not!
Limiting political service to short periods, thereby minimizing the probability that politicians will provide amenities for themselves which are superior to those of the masses is appropriate. This is even more necessary, since local politicians are adopting the same philosophy as the federal politicians by elevating the costs of health benefits and retirement packages for local politicians significantly above those affordable by the masses. Where else will one spend millions of dollars to obtain a job paying less than $200,000 per year? Why is there so much graft in the system?
Since there is no incentive for the politicians to correct this practice, it is incumbent on the media to stress the significant differences between the plight of the masses and the benefits enjoyed by their politicians. When the masses recognize how they are being ripped off, surely they will take action.
20081216Are you worried about your future? Or the future of your children and grandchildren? Consider the following:
The plight of our new nation was precarious for years after it was founded. The outlook for the future after the harshest war in the history of mankind was bleak for decades. We have experienced many depressions which seemed unendurable and we have been involved in unconscionable wars, most of which were not of our making. We have had leaders who failed dismally and we have endured untold hardships. We have had individuals like Mr. Soros, who tried and failed to destroy the English government, interfere in our domestic affairs; and we have had politicians who do not value the principles the preponderance of our citizens consider important. We have remained the most successful nation in the world.
A typical United States citizen is a Christian who expects to attain success through hard work and frugal life style. He appreciates the efforts of our founding fathers, who were Christians, and fashioned our government in like manner. They codified their beliefs in a Constitution which we revere. He realizes that the success of our Nation depended and will depend on these tenets. He does not share the views of the few that Socialism or Communism are appropriate for us, but he does not attempt to dictate what other nations desire for their governance. Most will acknowledge that he is glad to lend a helping hand to those less fortunate than he.
Inept governance and greedy financiers have resulted in what will likely be a depression like that of the 1930s, which few of us can appreciate. Incompetent leaders are the most likely causes of such a catastrophe and the concomitant results will injure the public. But, that is probably what it takes to remove those leaders and get the economy on a solid footing. Though we may suffer some hardships, we will survive. God is in His Heaven, all’s right with the world.
20081114It has taken the Federal politicians decades to insure that every man has a home -- especially illegal aliens, who have acquired them under assumed names known to be fictitious (and walked away from them) -- even though many could not qualify under reasonable investing requirements. Freddie and Fannie have been known to be flawed for years, but the Congress could not resist the perks they received from them. The housing crisis has been predicted for years, because subprime loans are known to be too risky for investors. Hence, arrangements were made to consolidate loans and relieve individual investors of their liability. Greedy institutions jumped at the chance to make a fast buck. Record falsification and rank dishonesty by both lenders and borrowers has been known and condoned by responsible lending agencies and Congress.
The Congress has consistently deterred industry from contributing to the economy by prohibiting the development of nuclear reactors, refineries, petroleum and coal energy resources and myriad other ventures, and facilitating intervention by legal obstructionists for legitimate ventures. Rather, they have supported conversion of food production to uneconomical energy development which introduced unreasonable living costs for the citizens. In spite of these problems, our economy has continued to function under free market conditions.
A bank failed under the loads Congress imposed coupled with management‘s greed, and the Congress rushed to absolve them of responsibility. Freddie and Fannie demonstrated that the housing situation was intolerable, so Congress rushed to absolve those organizations of liability. They have taken no action to resolve the underlying problems. In each case, the solution was under emergency conditions and singularly important, with officials determined to never allow the situation to recur. We have now been advised that there are other financial problems which can only be resolved by immediate infusions of federal monies, but that the costs to taxpayers will not only be minimal but possibly profitable. . Congress contends that we must make other countries whole -- presumably so they will continue to contribute to our profligate spending. Where in our Constitution are taxpayers responsible for contributing to foreigners’ welfare?
The Congress has taken no action to resolve the underlying causes of our financial dilemma, but has preferred to convert to socialism. There are certain problems with socialism that we have noted and summarily rejected. Surely, the Constitution does not condone such radical changes. But where are those who will take issue with such wanton actions of Congress? Even if we are able to replace half those miscreants in November, we will have difficulty undoing what they are doing today. In view of such radical changes, shouldn’t the Congress spend more than a week to make such a radical change?
20080929When one recognizes that the energy source for the U S has dropped from near 100% to 93% during the past thirty years of concerted action of Al Gore and his likes in the Congress, I question if our Congressmen have really thought through the solution of our energy crisis when they say that development of more petroleum resources is an inconsequential event. If we accept the views of experts that quadrupling the use of wind energy development from 2% to 8% will take ten years, the probability that we could realize a 1% improvement in petroleum energy sooner is far greater than use of wind power, and would be of greater significance. Though there are no short term solutions to this critical shortage, immediate action is necessary. To be sure, the generation of nuclear energy, though slowed by obstructionists in Congress would permit the most rapid replacement of petroleum energy, but we need an economic remedy in less than a decade. We cannot afford to transfer our wealth to our adversaries at this time -- a situation made clear by Russia’s recent power grab and the acts of terrorists. The Congress must recognize that they cannot toy with the energy industry as they have done during the past two decades trying to run the auto industry, for our economy is more important than our automobile industry.
20080813Members of Congress courting green peace and global warming proponents placed so many restrictions on petroleum production and the companies striving to meet the needs of our economy that they distorted energy costs far beyond their intended goals. They not only accomplished their plan to raise the price of oil to the point that other forms of energy could compete, but they reached the unintended situation where over a trillion dollars of our wealth is being diverted to middle east countries yearly, some of whom support terrorism. Additionally, they have thrust our country into a depression which could easily compare to another unintended problem seventy-five years ago. I think the media are correct in bringing these facts to the attention of the voters so they can take necessary action to remedy the situation in November.
The petroleum producing companies have experts who determine if and when investments will be profitable, and they are willing to spend their funds to promote petroleum production -- at no cost to the public or government. They do not invest in jobs that do not, at least in their judgement, offer probability of success. Others, probably more expert in their fields -- such as: solar, wind and nuclear -- should promote objectives which they believe will be profitable. But it is not the right of the government or others to decide that the petroleum companies should spend their funds on efforts that they do not select, regardless of whether some believe changes are justified. ExxonMobil rejected suggestions of some prominent shareholders because the management knew its capabilities and limitations. Investors are free to invest their funds as they see fit, and, as a shareholder of ExxonMobil, I prefer that XOM management continue to generate profits by deciding where they will spend their funds. In view of the situation we are in now, the governemnt would be the last organization I would select to remedy the present situation, for they don't know enough to get out of the way and allow the oil companies to build refineries and develop oil reserves. Asinine comments of Congressional leaders are not reassuring.
20080704In view of the pomp associated with swearing in both State and Federal government officials -- taking an oath on the Holy Bible before responsible witnesses to uphold the Constitution -- many citizens have believed that our government was well protected from those who would harm us. The conduct of our officials during the past forty years has clearly indicated that many who took that oath had no intention of abiding by it, though many took it several times. As a consequence, if we are to have a stable government as we have known it for over two hundred years, additional precautions should be adopted. We can no longer rely on the integrity of those taking the oath, for they have been found wanting. We cannot accept their solutions, for they have shown that they will not honor their oaths.
In view of the above, citizens should demand that there be penalties for any and all who fail to protect and uphold the Constitution. Impeachment should be mandatory upon evidence that the oath has been violated, not at the whim of those who have and are failing to govern properly. I would favor premanent disqualification of any violator to serve in any and all phases of the government as well as total elimination of any retirement benefits which they had accrued.
20080606The economy of the world and especially of the U S has benefited immeasurably from the use of petroleum products -- not only as fuel, but from the many derivatives the petroleum industry workers have developed. Our major corporations have existed over a century, and there are many small operators who have devoted their lives to the production and/or processing of petroleum products. These men and organizations have no equal when development and processing of energy resources in the petroleum industry is the objective. The costs of their operations are difficult for some to comprehend. A small operator producing stripper wells making no more than a barrel of oil per day each may have to spend $1,500 per day or more to repair a well. Similarly, a major corporation may have to spend $100 million to search for production in deep water, with no assurance that the operation will be successful. Though I am not so familiar with coal mining operations, their availability should be beneficial under our present conditions.
Many are concerned with the environment and recently recognized pollution resulting from the use of fosil fuels. We all want the best living conditions for us and our children, but these conditions are dependent on our economy -- which depends on the availability of energy. Hence, though we are divided on courses of action to resolve the pollution dilemma, the only prudent solution is to convert to improved energy sources under the least onerous conditions available to us now. We have no reasonable alternative but to continue to use fossil fuels until a better resource is available, and we should utilize our presently available resources efficiently. Hence, rather than restricting our coal and oil producers, we should support them until an energy replacement is available. Since authorities have opined that it will take a decade or more to make such changes, we should promote off-shore petroleum development and ANWAR as a first priority.
20080520Why does the U S patient pay almost twice as much for drugs as others so that the pharmaceutical companies can develop solutions for diseases of Africa, Asia and Europe?
Why does the U S station 150,000 troops in Europe and Asia to provide defenses and improved economies for those nations when they have not been needed for over a decade?
Why does the U S taxpayer pay over $200 billion per year to defray the costs of illegal aliens? Is it our responsibility to subsidize indigent Mexicans and the Mexican government?
Why are we refusing to develop energy resources to improve the living conditions in the U S?
Why have we allowed the dollar to depreciate 30%?
When are concerned voters going to wake up and elect Congressmen more interested in the welfare of their constituents than of foreign indigents?
20080420When is the Congress going to recognize that their handling of energy problems has been a disaster -- and take action? Most thinking people will agree that we should have built nuclear power plants (as France did) long ago, that we should open up ANWAR to petroleum production and encourage off-shore activities in search of more petroleum. Why are we ignoring coal, tar sands and other resources? Our failure to do so has increased the price of oil to triple it's proper value. And, rather than try to resolve a warming problem with its solution a probable destruction of our economy -- and possibly of significance in the twenty-second century -- why not try to resolve our present problems now? Why should we be so blind as to think buying gasoline from the Arabs would be better than buying oil and refining the gasoline ourselves when we developed the industry? When are we going to produce food to eat rather than to a hare brained program of generating energy? And, as a taxpayer, when are we going to move our troops back to the U S from Europe and Asia and reduce our taxes? Such actions are devaluing our money with no benefits to us. Isn't it time for the European countries to pay for their own defense and support their own economies? We need to progress to living in the 21st century.
20080325On this, the 40th anniversary of M L King's death, politicians are continuing to stress the onerous treatment of negroes and others by white men and emphasizing a debt owed, occasioned by slavery. Neither of my grandfathers, nor their children ever owned or worked slaves. To justify my rejection of these claims, I present the following:
My mother's father was a western cowman during the period following the civil war and ranched in West Texas. I do not believe there were many negroes in the area, but my grandfather lived and worked with mexicans who were in West Texas. So far as I know, the only association with negroes was the fact that his wife raised two negro babies from shortly after birth until their teens -- not because they were negroes, but because they were human beings who needed help.
My father's father was a businessman in Indiana before the civil war and he moved to Texas afterward, farming in south central Texas. He neither owned nor worked slaves, though he did provide support and welfare for many negroes who were abandoned after the civil war and unqualified to provide for themselves. When my grandfather died, one remaining negro we all called Aunt Lou, whose parents had been abandoned slaves, was cared for by my father until she died.
I cannot speak for my siblings, but I have lived and worked with negroes throughout my life of ninety years with respect. I do not believe any of the negroes I have associated with considered themselves inferiors, and I have never felt that their situation was a result of the status of ancestors living a century and a half earlier. New immigrants to the U S attained normalcy in one or at most two generations, and they had equally disruptive lives.
I have no regrets nor apologies for my attitudes nor actions, but I question the integrity of those who attempt to profit by raising such ridiculous conditions as reasons for individuals' failures in life. I would, however, appreciate it if those making their apologies would limit their coverage to themselves.
Apr 4, 2008Energy and food costs
Require development of proven energy reserves in ANWAR and offshore provinces and restore the use of food stocks to human consumption. Enable indigent economies to provide their own food rather than provide domestic resources to foreigh countries.
Medical costs
Prohibit charging U S users more than non-U S users for all pharmaceuticals. The price of a drug provided to all users should be the same regardless of capability to pay. Should a class of users be deemed to need special considerations, reimbursement of the pharmaceutical companies so the absolute value of a drug can be established is an option.
Weak dollar
Return all offshore based military personnel to the U S and restore national defense requirements to European and Asian countries. We no longer need to use U S taxes to provide desired vacations and holidays for Europeans.
Have you noted a common thread in these problems? It is the Congress. A good start, in my opinion, would be to change the Congress.
Mar 23, 2008Why won't the media point out to their audience that increased fuel costs not only cost the U S users but increase available funds for terrorists from the middle east and the concomitant dangers to us? And what is the approach employed by our Congress? They propose penalties to energy developers via a windfall profits tax, and diverting food supplies for the generation of fuel -- an inefficient process at best, with the resultant increases in food costs. Finally, utilization of nuclear generators has been effectively prohibited by the Congress, and the most plausible solutions -- development of ANWAR and offshore where oil and gas prospects are good -- are consistently prohibited. Responsible evaluators have suggested that our oil costs would be half what they are today if only ANWAR were opened to development.
Feb 26, 2008Our local promoters assert that a million dollars per year is contributed to the local economy with the addition of a hundred families. And I noted that Iceland sent a delegation to Washington last year to promote the maintenance of one fighter on their island. Hence, it appears to me that there is an economic advantage worldwide to having U S military personnel stationed in an area. With this in mind, I am curious about the value of having seventy thousand or more U S military personnel stationed in Europe -- or more than thirty thousand stationed in Asia.
I recognize that there was a time when the U S needed to have personnel in both Europe and Korea for the defenses of those areas. But, since the end of the cold war, it appears to me that the U S has no further need for such actions. Further, is seems to me that those countries should be expected to provide for their own defenses. As a consequence, the U S taxpayer is bearing an unnecessary burden by maintaining military personnel in foreign lands when they could reasonably be stationed in the U S and contributing to the domestic economies. And the maintenance of medical facilities in Europe at the expense of domestic facilities seems uncalled for. This is blatantly obvious when the European workers do not have attitudes relative to work ethic as strict as we in the U S have.
Have you ever considered my dilemma? If so, what is your view? 2008/01/12Our politicians, from the President on down, keep emphasizing how we are so blessed and fortunate as compared to the rest of the world. We are so much better off that we are obligated to share our good fortune with those less fortunate, and the government should take the lead. The poor Africans and Asians "deserve" expensive medical attention which they cannot afford and which we should develop because we have the wherewithal to do so. The European countries were indigent after WWII over half a century ago and we helped them return to normalcy. But, are we still obligated to provide for their defense and care for their every need now? The Mexicans have a corrupt government, so they should be welcomed into the US so they can realize the same benefits we have? The Europeans want a month of vacations per year, so we maintain 70,000 troops in Europe [though they could be stationed in the U S and benefit our economy] so the European economies will not be disrupted. And we must permit our pharmaceutical companies to provide European and other users at costs below those charged U S users. When we provide an aircraft carrier to help during a weather crisis, we are criticized for doing so little.
It was unfortunate that Hitler caused so much havoc and that Russia attempted to take advantage of Europe. But the U S bore as much or more of the burden of WWII, and went the extra mile in helping the recovery of Europe. The fact remains that the U S worker is different than the European worker. I am no exception, but I contributed to the WWII as a soldier and have contributed to the economy since I was fifteen years old -- and from the age of seven, I performed family chores like milking cows and plowing fields so we could survive some difficult times. I feel sorry for all indigents, but think they have a responsibility to provide for themselves. And I do not feel obligated to provide the type of life others would like to have when it is at my expense, especially since they are unwilling to take action on their own. I believe that the U S should recall all troops now stationed on foreign soil to U S locations, prohibit the sale of any pharmaceuticals developed in the U S at a price lower than that charged U S users, and allow individuals to donate as they please to others -- foreign or otherwise -- but prohibit government disposition of our wealth. We have centuries old laws determining propriety of immigration, so there is no need to provide special procedures for allowing indigents or otherwise to share in our wealth.
Jan 4, 2008When I started paying for Social Security in 1936, I was advised that this was saving for my retirement. I took this with a grain of salt and provided for my retirement as a personal responsibility. Unfortunately, with the exception of three years in which I served in the military, I was forced to contribute the maximum required for my income until I retired in 1984. Since I had paid the maximum each month, one would expect that I would receive the maximum payable when I retired -- but a devious calculation was employed whereby only a few years were considered so that I received about a third of the maximum one would calculate as due. Then, the Congress decided that was too much, so they commenced taxing the income from social security. A recent slap in the face is the decision that those whose income is more that a base amount are not entitled to it, so drastic Medicare increases [50% or more] are being artificially charged to reduce income to the recipient. Furthermore, the total amount is being included in the gross income, thereby increasing the income tax for the individual.
When a relatively small source of income can be treated in such a cavalier manner, there is no wonder that the populace is dubious of all federal taxation of income. And with such devious manipulation of taxes, there should be a more forthright method of defraying the costs of government. This, coupled with the gross waste promoted by the government should suggest that the voters need to change significantly the mode of taxation. It will take drastic changes, but we should start now by voting all incumbents out of office in the hopes that we couldn't have worse replacements.
Why is the United States wasting resources defending Asia and Europe? Why are U S citizens required to provide pharmaceuticals at high costs so that other countries may obtain them at much lower costs? Why are we so concerned with the plight of twenty or thirty million Mexicans that we have to provide health benefits and education for them? It is time we cared for our citizens and let the rest of the world provide for their own welfare.
Dec 13, 2007Our military has performed masterfully by developing technology to protect us from incoming missile attacks, and we should be grateful for their accomplishment. But defense of any and all from rogue attacks is not their responsibility. Why should we give Russia cause for concern by stationing rocket interception equipment near their borders when we don't need to? We can deploy ships with our interceptor technology in the same manner that we deploy submarines for nuclear counter attack in retaliation for incoming nuclear missiles. That, coupled with perimeter stations in the U S, should provide all the protection we need for the defense of the U S. As for Europe, they should be responsible for their own defense. Certainly, if we returned our military personnel now deployed in Europe to the U S, we would have no excuse to defend Europe, and maybe our taxes would be less and our dollar would be more valuable. Isn't it the Congress' responsibility to define the limits of military responsibility?
Oct 3, 2007Over half a century ago, it was in the best interest of the United States to form NATO to protect both we and the European countries, who could not provide adequate defense at the time, from Russian takeover. Similarly, Asian agreements were reached to stabilize political conditions in the far east, and we stationed U S troops in both localities to satisfy military needs at the time. Though we have had more in the past, we now have seventy thousand military personnel stationed in Europe and over half that many in Asia, despite the fact that needs have changed significantly. There is no more USSR to threaten Europe, but we still have troops stationed there at significant taxpayer expense when Europeans should be expected to take care of their own military needs. Relocation of these troops to the U S should significantly improve economic conditions in the U S, but we continue to use taxpayer funds to maintain foreign economies. We have learned during the Iraqi war that troops may be assigned from the U S to foreign service without the need to maintain European bases.
By the same token, we are presently allowing illegal immigrants to siphon funds estimated to be fifteen billion dollars per year from our economy and sent to Mexico to subsidize their economy. Before Congress increases our taxes, the taxpayer should insist that all U S military forces be recalled to permanent U S bases and that the transfer of wealth from the U S to Mexico by illegal immigrants be discontinued.
July 16, 2007Since the Senate has rejected amnesty and presents no probability of furthering legislation regarding illegal immigration this year, it appears to me that you are obligated to enforce the laws now on the books. There is no question that the U S citizens are expecting enforcement of our immigration laws as they are. The consequences of the past twenty five years of inaction and failure to enforce immigration laws should strengthen our resolve to secure our borders, remove illegal immigrants and penalize all organizations who violate the law. When are we citizens going to see the required action? Respectfully, Luther Randerson
28 Jun 2007Our Congress should be recognized for their brilliant legislative prowess in resolving problems of concern to us all: 1) They mandated the use of ethanol -- which requires two gallons of fuel to develop one gallon of ethanol -- as gasoline replacement and subsidized its production by fifty cents per gallon to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. A by-product of such brilliant thinking was a significant increase in the prices of milk, meats and agricultural products occasioned by converting lands normally used for various products to corn production. 2) They prohibit development of known domestic petroleum reserves and have developed such onerous regulations for building and operating petroleum refineries that operators are unable to provide adequate resources for domestic consumption -- we are now having to import refined products because of inadequate facilities here. 3) Their solution to unavailable energy needs is to require that vehicles must be manufactured to result in higher than reasonable mileage performance -- then blame car manufacturers for not providing these mandated and unreasonable values. They debate for hours "price gouging" as though such practices have any effect on availability. 4) In an environment when quality domestic companies are moving their headquarters off shore, they debate the desirability of penalizing energy companies for failing to develop alternative means of energy and making excessive profits -- some even proposing sharing these profits with indigent customers. And they are first to condemn managements for leaving such onerous conditions. 5) They fail to acknowledge that the citizens of this country have a right to select vehicles which appeal to them, regardless of efficiency, rather than to meet standards imposed by fiat.
But this critique is more than about energy incompetence.
For decades, our immigration laws have been flaunted despite the oath each official takes to uphold our laws and the Constitution, with the result that untenable conditions exist. They are now proposing legislation which they have no intention of obeying or enforcing for political reasons. They mandate building fences and setting up elaborate border defenses but fail to provide funds for accomplishing their mandated task. They propose charging illegal imigrants sums which no one in his right mind would believe would be collected and granting amnesty to some twelve to twenty million persons who should be classified as felons. Every member of Congress who has served during the past twenty-five years should be disqualified for failure to abide by his oath. They are no different than those few border patrolmen who were allowing immigrants into the U S illegally.
Jun 15,2007We have a centuries-old immigration policy which has proven workable and desirable from the standpoint of national security and civic welfare. Until the past thirty years, it has been enforced. As a result of the availabilty of cheap labor in Mexico, a plan to utilize such second class labor, especially in the agricultural and service communities, was promoted as a guest worker program. However, for political reasons, these guests were promoted to individuals with citizenship rights far exceeding those permitted by our laws. A disingenuous Congress, recognizing that the public would not accept blanket violation of the immigration laws, passed apparently harsh laws with no intent of enforcing them, and the resultant present conditions exist. They are now proposing to provide amnesty for those who violated previous immigration laws and, if the past is a guide, fail to enforce these laws so that additional illegal immigrants will be welcomed.
There are examples of "guest worker programs" which permit individuals to enter a country without pivileges other than to fulfill a job so long as it exists and then leave the country. Yet, the Congress appears vitally concerned that not only the worker but all his relatives come with full citizenship rights. It is time the voter stand up to these arrogant politicians for the injustices they are subjecting us to. Though there may be some honest, hard working individuals involved, there are far too many disreputable characters flooding our shores with undesirable results. There should be no amnesty for any violators of our laws, the borders should be sealed, employers of illegal immigrants should be harshly fined, and our procedures for legal immigration should be restored.
May 30, 2007How serious can members of the Federal Government be when they blatantly violate a centuries-old law for decades and then pass a law making the violation of that still valid law legal? How can the voter interpret the acts of a Congress which requires construction of border barriers but then provides no funds to accomplish the dictates? Citizens go to jail for violating the law, but politicians just get reelected, and they never consider impeaching members for failure to comply with their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the U S.
May 18, 2007In view of the corruption in the United Nations (as recently exposed when Iraq was invaded) and the attempted hatchet job on Mr Wolfowitz by the World Bank board, I believe that the Congress should mandate that no U S funds may be provided to the World Bank so long as there is not a U S official in charge at the bank. Attempts of the Europeans to take over this operation should not be tolerated. And the tax payer should be protected from such blatant dishonorable action.
May 1, 2007Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer". "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".
She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".
When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs". "There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". "Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."
When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous". "How much of this 'trickle down' ever get to the unemployed and minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."
"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower Federal Income Tax tax payers off the roles and increase government income substantially We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest"
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans"."
The U S is too dependent on imported petroleum, and the proposal that additional resources be developed does not meet liberal requirements for human safety and protection of the environment. Hence, we are embarked on a noble experiment to grow our own energy needs--with governmental support of $0.50 per gallon of methanol produced from agricultural products; such as, sugar cane, sugar beets, corn and weeds. The most appealing course of action, because it affects many voters, is the use of corn as a source of methanol. There is some debate regarding the feasibility of such action, for there are claims that the generation of methanol from corn requires somewhere between 0.8 gallons and 2 gallons of petroleum to produce a gallon of methanol. Nevertheless, the increase in value of corn crops from $2 per bushell to $4 per bushell has prompted farmers to convert 10 million acres of non-corn crops to corn this year. This isn't expected to significantly reduce the price of corn, because it will be used to make methanol. But it is anticipated that the prices of the soy, wheat, barley and other crops displaced will significantly increase, and their influence on living conditions will be similarly important. The increased price of corn is having significant impacts on the prices of milk, pork and beef, for the costs of feeding corn to livestock have been doubled over night. Thus, our solution for energy independence will and has had a drastic impact on living costs.
But this is only a part of the problem. A recent governmental study reveals that if it takes only 0.8 gallons of petrolleum to produce a gallon of methanol, the net contribution to our energy supply will be on the order of a 2% reduction of petroleum dependence at present, diminishing with time. Experts have opined that such a saving could be better realized by requiring that motorists be required to maintain correct air pressure in their tires and have a motor tune up at regular intervals. Even under the best conditions, a proposal to resolve energy deficiency by converting corn to methanol is ludicrous. Shouldn't we try the motor tune-up before seriously increasing our costs of living ? And how much is our primeval environment worth? How long must we delay development of petroleum reserves which can be a significant contribution to our energy woes?
Mar 30, 2007New York City and Washington, DC would be well advised to take note of the announcement that Halliburton is moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, with a branch office in Houston, Texas. The onerous regulations and taxation policies here can drive many global companies to reorganize as foreign companies with subsidiary offices in the United States. This appears to be a precursor to such action by Halliburton, and there could be a mass exodus of organizations who have been targets of unneeded management control or of excessive corporate wealth by politicians. Halliburton does not need the New York Stock Exchange nor U S government protection in its business; just fair treatment. It is unfortunate that an enviably operated Oklahoma company has been so oppressed that it must resort to such action, but they still exhibit the same leadership and innovation which made them great to begin with.
Mar 12, 2007In a Feb 9, 2007 Wall Street Journal article by Ms Kimberley Strassel, she details the plans of members of the Congress to appear to have eliminated earmarks when, in fact, their plans were to continue the profligate spending unabated clandestinely. Contrary to claims that Congressional leadership changes resulted from a general dissatisfaction of the electorate with the difficulties in the Middle East, I believe the voters were tired of the lack of integrity demonstrated by both the leaders and membars of Congress, primarily in their handling of immigration problems, the gross overspending by a party we had believed would limit governmental expansion and spending and balance an unacceptably large budget, and by condoning irresponsible actions of members completely out of control.
I hope the Republican members of Congress will be duly impressed by Ms Strassel's indictments, for it doesn't appear that the Democrats are willing to change the unacceptable actions of fraud, immorality and misrepresentations condoned by the last Congress. Neither party has demonstrated a desirable requirement for members' deportment nor congressional action, but the Republican party could regain a majority if they return to their past heritage of honesty and frugality. The preponderance of U S citizens do not desire hand outs or government control of their lives.
Feb 21, 2007Having observed some of the activities at the International Space Station during the past week, I am amazed that there could be so much trouble deploying and retrieving a solar array, for such a simple operation should be conducted by signals from the ground without the need for space-walkers. One would hardly have expected that such poorly designed equipment would be installed by an organization considered to be so high tech. This incompetence of design was as bad as or worse than the careless design of the Hubbel telescope, neither of which should be condoned in such an organization as NASA. Hopefully, whoever was responsible for such designs are no longer with NASA.
Dec 17, 2006In view of the support provided by the U S taxpayer in the form of NIH research and other emoluments, pharmaceutical companies have enormous incentives to develop medicines and treatments here. It is apparent that these incentives are not only significant but successful, for there are many companies participating in these endeavors, and enormous strides have been made in the development of these technologies.
Why tinker with such a successful situation? Because it is out of control. Pharmaceutical companies, through their pricing practices, do not adequately reflect the costs of research and development to all users. They pursue lines of endeavor for their individual successes at costs to U S taxpayers without regard for the total benefits to all users, and there is no accountability to those paying for the research and development. The pricing of products must eventually be dependent on value to the consumer rather than ability of the user to pay, and an option of a company to donate its product to indigents or price it to some users differently skews the determination of a product's value. A true value can only be determined when all costs of development are included in its price to all consumers.
A contention that the developers cannot succeed without this disparity is fallacious, and the idea that there is no workable solution is false. The U S has required for decades that the full costs of development of military equipment may not be borne solely by U S taxpayers by the simple expedient that no product may be sold to other than the U S at a price lower than that paid by the U S. Hence, the Congress can resolve not only the concerns for disparate pricing--either by age, sex, nationality or otherwise--by simply requiring that none of these pharmaceutical products may be sold to other than U S users at a price lower than that charged U S users.
Dec 5, 2006I have observed with amazement the gross disparity between the debates in Congress and the handling of illegal aliens on the Mexican border. Congressmen vote to erect barriers, knowing full well that they will be ineffective, and fail to insure that illegal immigrants in custody are returned to Mexico. For over a decade, federal authorities have not only allowed, but promoted such activities, contending that our economy needed the workers or that it was a humanitarian activity. Such actions have degraded our civilization significantly and have and are costing taxpayers far more than we are being helped. When Arizona state authorities take action, they are threatened with penalties even though they are enforcing a law, because only Federal enforcers uninterested in removing illegal immigrants may take such action. Threats are made against border patrol personnel, who are eligible enforcers, for enforcing our laws by the same biased parties. Our officials are not just failing to enforce our laws, but deliberately and callously forcing personnel to break the laws. Our disingenuous Congress is well aware of this, and their failure to take action is a violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.
The U S immigration laws have endured more than a century, are well understood; and the procedures for obtaining citizenship are well documented. They are precise, clear and detailed. and there can be no ambiguity in their interpretation. Among the requirements for citizenship are law abiding applicants with a knowledge of our laws and heritage, an ability to speak and comprehend the English language and a desire to promote the welfare of the United States. Allegiance to other countries is not acceptable. Over the past decade these requirements have not been enforced. Requiring instructions for voters ( who are presumably only citizens) to be in various languages other than English is a clear indication that there is no intent to comply with the laws. Allowing illegal immigrants to cross the border to give birth to children so citizenship may be obtained illegaly is wrong. Proposing that non-citizens be allowed to vote has no place in our civilization. Providing US medical facilities for people of other countries simply because they are not available in their country is unacceptable.
Various excuses for deviating from these laws have been claimed; workers are needed to do menial jobs, or indigents require humanitarian relief. The taxing of citizens to educate and care for alien indigents is not included in any of our laws. Those wishing to modify the conditions of immigration are obligated to change the laws, not violate them. No law is excludable from enforcement at the whims of the violator. Hence, the failure of our authorities to properly enforce immigration should be an impeachable offense for not only individual law enforcement personnel, but all associated with the administration of our government.
Nov 22, 2006Having observed some of the debates of the "Commission on Hamden vs Rumsfeld, Detainee Treatment and Trials" and the concerns of the participants for preserving fairness for the prisoners, especially concerning the bungling of the Congress in confusing the relationship of prisoners of war and terrorist detainees, it appears that the military has no recourse, if they are to minimize risk to soldiers, other than to take no prisoners. Loss of information from interrogation would be far less a problem than the danger of releasing terrorists to kill again. Furthermore, the treatment of detainees at GITMO, when comparing their treatment to the treatment of our fignters against them, is unconscionable. Politicians' concerns for enemy treatment of U S combatants occasioned by the methods we employ in handling prisoners is hogwash. The enemy will do as they always have done, regardless of our actions.
It is apparent that the reluctance of China and Russia to contribute to the solution of the nuclear bomb problems posed by North Korea and Iran is merely a ploy supported by South Korea and European contries to milk the United States for more financial benefits. Admittedly, nuclear weapons are a threat to us, but they are also a threat--even moreso to the far eastern and European nations--to all the countries of the world. As a consequence, we should make it abundantly clear that we support the "carrot and stick" negotiations when dealing with North Korea and any other Nations threatening to develop nuclear weapons, but that we will provide the "stick" while other nations will provide the "carrots". Furthermore, to insure that there be no doubt in the thinking of rogue nations that nuclear response is "off the table" when nuclear weapons are employed, we should inform the world that nuclear attacks may be countered with nuclear weapons--at least as damaging as those employed by enemies. Congress should take the lead in defining the position of the United States, for they are responsible for monetary outlays.
Oct 11, 2006One need only refer to the Bible to understand the ethics as well as the modus operandi of the countries in the Middle East. For several millennia, conflicts there resulted in the annihilation of the defeated, including women, children and even the animals and crops. So long as only those countries were concerned, the rest of the world had no concern for their activities, because, in general, they were very poor and their capability for influencing worldwide conditions was insignificant. The discovery of vast quantities of oil in the last century coupled with the enormous increase in value of the commodity recently has cast the region in a different light, for they can influence many countries who desire their products, and wreak havoc with the wealth generated by these transactions. The availability of nuclear weapons and the express desire of these people to destroy any and all enemies completely changes the situation. The only reasonable solution is to treat them as they say they will treat us. And, since the ayatollahs and imams who preach jihad against us are the most dangerous, we should make every effort to remove them as quickly as possible. An advantage would be delivering millions of innocent Middle Easterners from the destruction desired by those in power.
Sep 11, 2006To send Israeli troops into Lebanon with restrictions to not harm the Lebanese was ridiculous, and to allow hezbollah to attack Israeli citizens with the knowledge that the Israeli would not respond in kind was equally wrong. For the administration to announce that the solution would not condone continued hezbollah presence has diminished our credibility. As a consequence, the administration has done a disservice to not only the Israeli and U S citizen, but the world, for eventually it will be necessary to defeat the Iranians, Syrians and hezbollah, with a far greater loss of life than would have been required at this time. Additionally, our task in Iraq has been made more difficult.
Aug 15, 2006For the past month, the Hezbollah have been targeting Israeli civilians with their rockets while Israeli forces have been taking pains to spare the Lebanese civilians, to the disadvantage of their fighting forces. It is time the Israeli forewarn Lebanon that henceforth, Lebanese civilians are military targets until Hezbollah forces are driven from Lebanon. It shouldn't take even the Lebanese more than a few major cities' destruction, commencing with Beirut, to determine that the Hezbollah are not their friends. And the U S should notify all that rebuilding Lebanon would be the financial responsibility of Iran and Syria. Providing humanitarian, financial or any other aid to the Syrians and Lebanese defeats the purpose of the Israeli destruction. And, in the event the Israelis have difficulties, we should provide assistance to them. We have to accept that Iran may make the mistake of entering the fray and be prepared to deal with them harshly. Pampering them to gain acceptance of their young people is wishful thinking.
Aug 7, 2006In view of the grave disparity between the views of the citizens of the US and their representatives concerning the desirability of English as the official language of our government, it is apparent that there must be significant changes if the will of the people is to be realized. It is my view that a constitutional change should be in order, for such a significant requirement should not be left to the whims of an organization so self-serving and dilatory as the Congress.
May 23, 2006The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been conducting hearings on gasoline supply and pricing during the past week. Senior representatives of organizations who have been dealing with energy problems for nearly one hundred years are providing input for the benefit of the committee members. Unfortunately, the members don't even realize how incompetent they are, for they seem to be rebutting statements of fact made by experts. The American Petroleum Institute was formed in the early twentieth century to develop useful controls for an industry which had no guidance. They, along with the Texas Railroad Commission, restored sanity and conservation to an immature business, and were exclusively responsible for the development of the petroleum industry. Concurrently, associations of pipeline carriers, petroleum truckers and refining practices were formed to promote useful utilization of petroleum products, and they all contributed to prudent and logical development of resources furthering maximum benefits at minimum costs for users. State associations of Local Air Pollution Control were developed to provide guidance for the industry, and various organizations were formed to consider reformulated fuels, boutique fuels, renewable fuels and ethanol additives. Close cooperation of producers, refiners and transporters resulted in the orderly development of a highly complex industry, and the progression of practices from providing kerosene for lanterns, adding lead to improve gasoline performance, modifying practices to improve the ecology and the myriad activities associated with these actions cannot be appreciated by those whose sole concern appears to be penalizing organizations for price gouging or making undue profits. The objectives of these organizations for many decades have been to provide an economical service to users, and the charge that they have changed during the past decade or so to damage the users is grossly unfair to organizations who have made the industry what it is today.
A recent ultimatum by the U S government to use ethanol additives could not be efficiently accomodated by the industry in the time allocated, thereby increasing the prices of the products unreasonably. Had the industry been given reasonable time for such a transition, a more orderly and economical change could have been effected. Abnormal hurricane damages last year , though dealt with admirably by those most affected by the shut-downs were condemned by politicians whose desires were currying political favor rather than resolving problems. An immediate demand that energy companies build additional refineries, or that the U S military compete with private industry clearly indicates that such proponents have no concept of the problems involved. Twenty years ago, an ill informed government damaged irrevocably the normal conduct of the business by establishing windfall profits taxation, with the result that the user is still being penalized for those inept actions. Unreasonable regulations of petroleum producers and refiners have contributed to unneeded energy costs in the U S. Failure to open desirable areas for development by petroleum companies has significantly penalized the U S users by needlessly limiting available resources and increasing our dependence on foreign providers. To make matters worse, the politicians apparently believe their input is required to assure the users economical availability of energy when, in fact, the users would be better served if the politicians would allow the industry experts to do what they do best--conduct their business without political intervention.
May 13, 2006A little over a century ago, the discovery of significant quantities of crude oil and the realization that it could be used for fuel in the United States attracted individuals like John Rockefeller to search for ways to make money from its use. Techniques for drilling for and producing oil were developed by individuals interested in making money thereby. Because of inexperience, there were accidents, damages and serious losses, but interference by political divisions was not a concern of those developing the industry. To develop a viable industry, the major participants formed an organization -- the American Petroleum Institute (API) -- to establish practices to permit safe and economic development and to conserve a valuable commodity. Texas designated the Railroad Commission to work with the API to control and develop the industry, and viable controls were established which were applicable worldwide in the development of what we now appreciate as a major industry. These two organizations contributed significantly to correct wasteful practices to an orderly use of petroleum. The API maintained records of practices, products and needs, with the result that products were blended for timely use. Gasoline was provided for autos and fuel oil was provided for heating to realize the maximum income from the raw product. Heating and lighting as well as development of the automotive industry was closely related to these efforts, for the businesses recognized that cooperation was necessary to realize the maximum benefits of petroleum. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) established requirements for auto users and the API developed-- in conjunction with users -- norms for petroleum products. Refineries were built by the vendors so the product could be sold and periodically improved with such practices as adding lead to the mix to improve fuel performance; and later changing such practices as removing lead because it was found that there were more disadvantages than advantages to its use. The petroleum industry developed these practices in order to realize maximum profits from the use of a complex commodity, and there was little, if any, concern by the users that the suppliers were treating them fairly. If one station charged more than another station, the user went to the lower priced or better performing vendor.
Regardless of economic conditions, enormous sums of money are needed for developing petroleum reserves. The developer selects an area which he believes contains oil reserves, leases property to determine if it is productive, and drills with the hope that oil or gas will be located. A successful venture can be quite valuable, but an unsuccessful venture is very costly. In the 1930's, Magnolia Petroleum Co leased some acreage along the Texas gulf coast for 5 cents per acre, spent over $100,000 to drill wells to 7,000 feet and located a vast oil reserve. Decades later, they drilled much deeper on the same leases and discovered significantly more reserves, with the result that the cost of the reserves was less than 5 cents per barrel and the cost of recovering the petroleum nominal. The lease is still producing and the oil is selling for $70 per barrel. Such an operation is every wildcatter's dream. But, in the off-shore of Texas, Mobil must pay the government vastly higher fees to obtain a lease to drill, spend perhaps a year with a rig at $50,000 per day and drill a dry hole -- a total loss of hundreds of millions. Hence, citing a single example of a company's experience can be very misleading. ExxonMobil has expert personnel and makes daily decisions to expend vast sums to obtain petroleum reserves and carry out its businesses. They have enormous resources and are able to use them to maintain a successful organization. They are careful to evaluate all expenditures -- the reason they are successful. Hence, when a refinery is needed and they do not build one, there must be a reason. No successful business will pass up a chance to make money on an expenditure they recognize will make them money. The suggestion by politicians that ExxonMobil should build a refinery or make any other expenditure is clearly a demonstration that the politician is ignorant, for ExxonMobil would be ahead of him if there were a possibility that money could be made from the venture. Any suggestion that ExxonMobil or any other organization operating for profit should donate services or products for the benefit of the country is not cognizant of a way of life for those in a capitalistic economy.
In the mid-twentieth century, Texas initiated a novel procedure to build roads the politicians considered necessary. A nominal tax was added to the cost of gasoline, and Texas was able to build enviable highways-- so it didn't take the other states long to use the same tactics; and shortly thereafter, the U S couldn't pass up this opportunity to increase its take, though it didn't limit the income to building highways. At the present time, the states impose their taxes on gasoline sold, the U S does likewise, and the profit from a gallon of gasoline to the supplier is less than half that assessed by the U S and much less than the state's takes, though neither the U S nor the states has any investment in the operation. Taxing the profits of the company provides an additional source of income for the politicians.
During the past twenty years, politicians have consistently interfered in the functioning of oil companies because of the high cash flow and their desire to profit from it. Faillure to allow producing companies to utilize readily available resources -- such as drilling off-shore Florida , placing the Alaska arctic properties off limits and imposing unrealistic conditions for plant location and construction -- has needlessly hamstrung energy suppliers, with the result that energy costs to U S users are higher than they should be. To make matters worse, they then attempt to blame energy suppliers for the problems government has caused, and suggest energy producers are dishonest. Twenty years ago, when there was a shortage of products, the Congress decided the oil companies were making unreasonable profits, and they imposed a "windfall profits tax" which, in conjunction with unreasonable imposition of other controls, served to reduce expenditures for the development of properties by the companies. Today, as in the past, congressional consideration of another windfall profits tax is ludicrous to any and all but politicians whose incompetence never ceases to amaze an unbiased observer. Though a century ago, the industry became a major force in the economy as a business designed to make money for the owners, politicians now view it as a right for users to have energy at a price politicians believe fair, whether the owners make money or not. Unfortunately, the politicians will not have the last word.
Apr 27, 2006I have been quite happy with your performance during the past 6 years, for I believed you exercised fiscal responsibility, conservative approaches to our international relations. and moral responsibility in the selection of Supreme Court justices. I have been unhappy with the Republican congress, in general, because I believe they have been wasteful and arrogant. I also believe that we are better off with a Republcan president and a Republican congress than we would have been with a Democratic party in power. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for our government to allow the Mexican government to dictate our immigration policies, nor for the influx of twelve million illegal immigrants into our country to be passed off as a disappointing but insoluble sollution to the condition we now face. Our first priority is to seal our borders and to remove all illegal immigrants so that we may return to our accepted immigration practices. Every illegal person should be fingerprinted, photographed and registered before deportation so we may identify and class as a felon any and all who return illegally. Every employer must be penalized for his violation of our laws. Only then may we properly resolve the predicament we are in. Disruption of the economy, as some claim but have no proof for, nor "cheap labor" should have no influence on the enforcement of our laws.
I, and I believe many more feel strongly about amnesty for, or condoning illegal entry of, non-citizens into the U S; and, though I suspect that there will be no significant change if and when Democrats are in power, I shall work to defeat any and all in the Senate and Congress who support such blatant and irresponsible treatment of our laws.
Apr 22, 2006There have been a number of people claiming that illegal immigrants voted in U S elections; some appearing proud of this fact. When our voting privileges are compromised, our way of life as a country is compromised, for the integrity of our system is flawed. Extreme measures have been employed to insure integrity of our voting processes, but if the local election judges fail to insure that voters are legitimate, all is to no avail. Hence, any and all responsible parties who fail to enforce voting rules, should be so severely penalized that they could never oversee nor vote in any U S elections.
Some members of the clergy and some educators have signified that they do not concur with our integration laws--which were established by our constitution and duly elected representatives. Furthermore, they have indicated that they would not and would ask others to not abide by these laws. There is no place in our society for such miscreants, and they should be summarily penalized for such a stance. It is not a matter of expression--if they wish to change the laws, they may try legally-- but no one should have permission to disobey nor suggest failure of others to obey legitimate laws of the U S. Apr 15, 2006A cursory analysis of the immigration plan being promoted by members of the Senate reveals several conditions which do not meet acceptable norms for citizenship. As a consequence of the belief that the illegal immigrants deprived the US of fair taxes, they will be fined either one or two thousand dollars. Apparently, the workers are believed to have reported eight or more dependents to avoid deductions of their payroll, with the result that they avoided taxes. The proposal that they be checked for criminality goes begging, for the fact that they are illegal is prima facie proof of their criminality. To forgive this minor failing because they are 'just trying to improve their economic condition' can be the excuse for robbers, thieves and many other criminals. The contention that our economy will be damaged by removing these illegal aliens has been refuted rather forcefully by a Center for Immigration Studies recent report. In fact, the reason for the political action is solely to gain favor of the Hispanic vote. The Senate is willing to allow the Mexican government to dictate our immigration policy at the expense of our national security. Such disingenuous action is not helped by the recent disclosure that the Congress has been clandestinely authorized by Congressional rules to buy securities with nonpublic knowledge of events when it is illegal for investors to employ such tactics. The ongoing charade will hopefully be quashed by the House, but surely, the voters will recognize the incompetence of those Senators who support such blatant action.
When the government (composed of persons who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, and thereby enforce our laws) allows twelve million illegal immigrants into the U S and takes no action to remove them--asserting that the system is beyond control--they have failed in their commitment. They have committed a wrong which is intolerable, and there should be some recourse to remove them from office and install those who will take the action necessary to restore the conditions to acceptable norms. There is no excuse that our economy will suffer, nor that innocent people will be hurt. The fact remains that the illegal immigrants are a violation of our laws; and the situation should not be tolerated. Surely, there should be some way to refer the problem to our Courts and restore our government to law abiding citizens who will take an oath seriously.
Mar 29, 2006Republicans have been considered conservative--fiscally and morally--until the last five years, notably failing from their enviable performance during the latter half of the 1990's. Commendably, they have improved the judiciary, but their failings far outweigh their successes. They lowered the taxes to the benefit of the economy, but failed to make the situation permanent. They failed to remedy the dire plight of the Social Security System to provide for the future. They passed unreasonable medical and health programs which will bankrupt us, and they have failed dismally to provide border security and enforce our workable immigration laws. Permanently sealing our borders and enforcement of our immigration laws should be a prime objective. Assuring that babies born in the US to non-citizens cannot be citizens of the US is essential. The Congress appears to be content to allow the Mexican government to determine our immigration practices. In the same vein, they have entrusted the development of an energy policy to such organizations as the Sierra Club. Their failure to correct "markup practices" is creating unconscionable federal waste. Their excuse? The President should veto their bills. Congress is responsible for all expenditures, so there are none but they to blame for such a situation. President Bush is doing commendably in spite of the Congress.
The incumbents, Republican and Democrat alike, do not deserve to be returned to govern us, for they are arrogant, overbearing representatives unwilling to follow a reasonable course of action to improve conditions in the United States.
Mar 21, 2006During World War II thousands of photos of Europe for bomb damage assessment were taken. Photographs of German locales after extensive bombing verified massive damage, with debris in streets, cities, marshalling yards, etc. Usually, within a few days, return photos revealed that the debris had been cleared and the bombed areas were well policed. On the other hand, photographs of French highways to provide ground troop movement routes, showed vehicles damaged by German forces when they captured France still obstructing routes where they had been damaged. The industrious nature of the Germans contrasted markedly with the French peoples' complete lack of interest in their territory.
It is interesting to note that there is a similar contrast between hurricane damaged portions of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans months after hurricane Katrina. If citizens have so little interest in their community that they are unwilling to keep it clean, the Federal governemnt should not be expected to provide such services.
Mar 2, 2006
As a member of a gun club and a hunter, it has been my experience that all gun clubs not only expect SAFETY, but DEMAND it. A thousand-yard firing line MUST be shut down if a dog runs onto the range. No one goes out on the range until all firing has ceased, and no firing is permitted until the range is clear. No exceptions! On hunts, hunters must observe firing zones. And when a hunter demonstrates carelessness or failure to observe the safety rules, he loses membership. Group hunting is inherently dangerous, and one careless hunter will get the attention of all the others with just one bad action. Hence, Mr Cheney must be terribly embarassed by his careless actions. The media are having a field day both in decrying VP Cheney's policies and in denigrating guns. Hopefully, they will have no influence on either situation. Mr Cheney made an unforgiveable mistake by injuring a fellow hunter, but he will survive and be a better man for it.
It has been over a decade since the security of the U S has depended on the protection of Europe by U S military forces, yet we continue to provide military and financial support as well as maintenance of medical facilities in Europe at the expense of similar facilities in the U S. NATO is obsolete. Though we have begun repatriating military forces, the present rate of their return to the U S is unacceptable. How much longer will the U S taxpayer have to subsidize the European workers' vacations? How much longer will you punish U S communities to enable incompetent European countries to continue to sponge on the U S worker? And, are we going to have a similar situation in Asia? I support reduced spending to help the taxpayer--reduced foreign spending, especially.
Feb 14, 2006Senator Kerry's vacationing in Davos, Switzerland, during the Alito hearings suggest that he was not seriously interested in determining Judge Alito's qualifications. His call for an attempt to kill the nomination via filibustering clearly indicates that his moves were politically motivated. Continuing support by the voters of his State leads one to question their values.
Ex-Pres Jimmy Carter suggests that the U N must step in to provide the financial support needed by Palestine should the U S fail to provide accustomed funds. In view of the long established policy of the U S that supporters of terrorism are unacceptable, it will be necessary for the White House as well as Congress to cut off all funds to the U N should it take such action. Hopefully, the Congress will take immediate action to minimize the risk that some Nations will misunderstand our resolve to fight terrorism.
Jan 27, 2006Fox News, and others as well, are doing their viewers a disservice by serving as a sounding board for Mfume, Rangel, Sharpton, Jackson and others whose objective is to profit from the erroneous perception that negroes are mistreated. Gulf coast hurricanes are an ideal tool for them to promote their agenda at the expense of politicians singularly influenced by such misconceptions.
It was grossly inappropriate for the Federal government to commit billions of dollars of tax payers' funds to defray the costs of those who lost jobs and property in recent natural disasters, because adequate facilities were and are available for citizens to insure against such losses. Their failure to carry such insurance is not the responsibility of taxpayers. Additionally, housing these refugees for months at the expense of taxpayers is unconscionable because there is no incentive for them to return to a productive status.
Jan 22, 2006Governor Richardson demonstrates his genius for solving the energy problem by suggesting that wildcatters search for oil in N Mex [where oil operators have exhausted their searches after decades], rather than to disturb the ecology of Alaska [where known reserves are not being developed]. Despite clear evidence that drilling and producing operations can be conducted without endangering the flora and fauna, there are dissidents like Gov Richardson attempting to fault the administration. It is not the Bush administration refusing to develop reserves both in Alaska and in the offshore waters of the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico.
Come to think of it, why not install nuclear reactors in N Mex, or is the natural habitat more important than the availability of energy to our economy? And not only N Mex, but the other states of those so concerned about the ecology?
"WASHINGTON--After the mistakes of the Bush administration in prosecuting the war in Iraq and responding to the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina, the assumption is Americans will want someone of unquestioned competence the next time they go to the polls to elect a president. Based on her Senate performance, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton easily meets that criteria".
Competent military strategists have lauded the conduct and performance of the U S-led coalition in Iraq as an enviable success, and have predicted that students of military activities will study these operations in detail to guide them in any future conflicts. And, no reasonable politician will espouse a Constitutional right of the Federal government to encroach on States rights in such conditions as when Katrina struck, especially when the State refused to request federal assistance. Finally, no responsible citizen will just assume that competent leaders are desirable, but will attempt to ensure that they are elected--not just in the next presidential election, but in all elections. Unfortunately, the statements cited above are not those of an elementary student learning to express himself, but of a nationally syndicated columnist, possibly biased in his views. Even the proofreader should have corrected the grammar.
9 Jan 2006What better organization to handle worldwide disaster problems than the United Nations. They have the organization, personnel and prestige of association to blend into solutions of such problems. And, since the overhead costs of the Red Cross approximate eight (8%) percent of gross expenditures, the costs would be far less. Even 1% of over a billion dollars is significant, so the decision to utilize the UN appeared reasonable. Furthermore, in view of the recent misappropriation of funds related to Iraq and the assurance that UN money dealings would be patently visible for the world to watch, their selection to administer the aid to tsunami victims in Asia appeared reasonable.
It is a year since the disaster and we have now learned that the administrative costs incurred by the UN are unknown, but will approximate 25% to 33% of the total amount. They are unable to provide a record of expenditures to date, though they think possiblly half the total amount has been spent. Just another reason the U S should withdraw all support for the United Nations and save taxpayers' money.
Dec 30, 2005
Security leaks affecting National Security reported by The New York Times were most probably occasioned by either the CIA or one or more members of Congress. The Whitehouse reported the subject activities a dozen or more times to Committees of Congress, so it is surprising that some members of Congress became incensed after so long a period. In view of the lack of integrity of some members of Congress who are desirous of our defeat in Iraq, it is probable that they are culpable. The credibility of the New York Times is no better than that of Congress, so there should be a survey of all members who had access to the information with the intent of impeachment unless the culprit is identified. As for the CIA, Don Rumsfeld should investigate them.
Dec 19, 2005
Congressional hearings purportedly to learn how to improve 'Homeland Security' and to analyze FEMA actions for better performance in the future appear to relate responses to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Unfortunately, there are few parallels other than that the public is disadvantaged. Centuries of records provide reasonable data upon which determinations of risk may be made to resolve natural disaster losses. Insurors are available to help citizens recover from known property and other damages resulting from hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, among other things. And an excellent Weather Service affords U S citizens adequate time to react to disruptions in living. Those living in 'tornado alley' have long known that cellars or basements were desirable for tornado protection. We have learned to design structures for earthquake protection, and the risks of flood plains, hurricanes and vollcanic eruptions are understood. As a consequence, it is not necessary for the government to be responsible for personal welfare or losses occasioned by natural disasters. Private insurors are available to cover property losses. Personal protection is determined by individual decisions for the degree of personal risk desired, and the government should not attempt to dictate conditions. A decision to depart a hazardous area should not necessarily involve government transportation nor accomodations. Private organizations' services are available for indigents; all others should be responsible for their own welfare.
Terrorist activity, by definition, is unpredictable in both time and location. Reaction rather than action must be anticipated, for a known terrorist assault would certainly be countered. Citizens are entitled to governmental protection because there is no other recourse. As a consequence, FEMA and Homeland Security are essential tools for such assaults on the U S. Hopefully, as time progresses, authorities' ability to minimize terrorism will improve.
Dec 10, 2005Seventy-five years ago, before we had air-conditioned cars, refrigerators and other normally expected comforts of living--even electricity, radios and telephones in many homes--we didn't question that it was our responsibility to collect rain water to provide potable water during emergencies, or that we had to have ice water during the summer in order to exist. When we wished to go somewhere and had no transportation, we were dumb enough to walk; and no one realized that it was the government's responsibility to cater to these desires.
Realizing how times have changed, the US, at significant expense, sent military ships to provide ice for the tsunami victims in Asia. The FEMA officials feared rioting in the Gulf Coast states because they could not provide ice water for the hurricane victims. Officials were castigated because they did not provide relief for indigents. And, though the information was available to all, government officials were faulted when people did not heed weather alerts and evacuate danger zones.
Some would think it more reasonable to concentrate efforts on life-saving procedures than on conveniences. Some would expect that individuals were responsible for their own welfare. In any case, these situations explain why the cost of government has risen so precipitously.
Dec 7, 2005
Senators Dorgan, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin and Schumer and members in the House too numerous to mention apparently believe that a lie repeated often enough will be accepted as fact. Pres Bush and VP Cheney have responded effectively enough that many who have been misled will recognize that these Senators and others are, instead, pathologic liars.
Dec 5, 2005
It is disconcerting to realize that our government condones a situation wherein a dozen two-bit politicians can demand an audience of the top managers of an industry to demonstrate their ignorance of basic economics which they could learn from any elementary teacher. Interestingly, senators from farming states who demanded and obtained federal funding for ethanol fuels are more interested in assessing oil producers than in using ethanol which they produce for fuel. Could ethanol be more costly?
Nov 9, 2005
Recognizing that the success of management is reflected by the profitability of their company and that the taxes collected from the company depend on its profitability, every effort should be made by the government to help management succeed. A good management continuously strives to manage all its resources, including personnel and funds for maximum profitability. In the case of energy companies, and specifically those needing refineries, the availability of such resources must be a paramount concern; hence, the failure of companies to build refineries should indicate that there is a major problem with refineries. The fact that the government does not recognize such a problem is frightening, and the recent proposal that the government force companies to build refineries which they cannot economically justify is tragic.
There have been recent attempts of some in the government to interfere in the operations of energy companies. Senator Clinton has demanded that energy companies profits be used to defray the costs of energy to users or develop novel fuels. Senator Dorgan has proposed that part of the profits be shifted to the government, thereby reducing the capability of a profitable company to best utilize its resources. In these cases, the managerial skills of qualified performers will be undercut by less qualified managers, if a politician can be called a manager. A case in point: the government's proposal to use two gallons of gasoline to grow and process grain to produce one gallon of ethanol to solve the energy problem. Or spending millions of dollars to build a bridge to a remote, unused island in Alaska to satisfy the whims of Senator Stevens.
The shareholders of the energy companies specifically, and all profitable companies in general must be cognizant of such unethical and damaging practices and hold those politicians accountable. Our present situation is the direct result of political interference occasioned by failure to make potential resources available, provide reasonable rules of operation and allow managers to manage their operations.
26 Oct 2005
Incidences of Avian flu in Asia and other remote areas have prompted critics to indict the US for failure to develop remedies. Since Europe, Russia, Japan, Australia and Africa are more severely affected by the problem, it should be their time to develop solutions. If they haven't resolved the problem when we have cases, then we will take care of the situation.
The United Nations is the largest anti-US organization in the world and we are contributing a disproportionate share of its costs and military capability to fund it. Financial support as a percentage of its budget in 2001 : U S--22%, Japan--19.63%, Germany--9.82%, France--6.50%, U K--5.57%, Italy--5.09%, Canada--2.57% and Spain--2.53%. Interestingly, two permanent members, China and Russia, are not even included as contributors in this list. Some of the 20-odd other members serving in the Security Council don't contribute anything, yet they have votes. Any reasonable evaluator must conclude that permanent members of the Security Council should provide equitable financing, and none should be allowed to dictate financing procedures unless they are subject to the terms. But financing is not the only problem. There are attempts to subject US governance to UN control, an untenable condition. Hence, it is time for Congress to relieve U S taxpayers of such a yoke.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] was formed half a century ago to counter Russian threats. The U S stationed personnel and developed capabilities in Europe; and has funded close to 75% of the costs of the operations. Over 119,000 military personnel are now stationed in Europe--with the result that valuable U S resources are contributing to the European economy. While we continue to fund world-class medical establishments overseas, we have allowed some of our finest--Walter Reed hospital, for example--to deteriorate to the point that they are being closed. For the past decade, there has been no serious threat to Europe, and there is no reason for maintaining U S forces in Europe. Activities in the Middle East have demonstrated that we can stage troops for worldwide deployment from the U S, and our Air Force and naval capabilities do not require maintaining bases in Europe.
Similar conditions prevail in Southeast Asia, though there are probably remote risks related to China which could suggest that some troops would be advantageously stationed there. The concerns of some related to North Korea are of no consequence, provided we clearly define what our actions will be if nuclear weapons are used. However, the careless action of Congress in other areas leads one to believe that significant savings could be realized in Asia as well. It is difficult to believe that 45,000 troops are needed in Japan and 37,000 troops are still needed in Korea. It has been over fifty years since requirements were determined.
Pharmaceutical companies--primarily those in the U S--are permitted to establish U S prices higher than foreign prices for drugs; even providing some free of cost to indigent countries. This drain on U S taxpayers could be easily avoided by Congressional action mandating that U S prices could be no higher than the lowest prices paid by any other purchaser. It is not reasonable to expect that the U S taxpayer should defray research and development costs of drugs. The pharmaceutical companies own our Congress.
8 October 2005New Mexico governor Richardson has suggested--in fact, indicted--the oil industry for price gouging; as evidenced by the recent price increases of gasoline and oil related products. On the other hand, Wall Street has explained the recent decrease in product prices to the report that hurricane Rita will not do as much damage as was expected, prompting speculators to sell their positions in petroleum products. Who are we to believe? Gov Richardson or Wall Street analysts? I think Gov Richardson's credibility and integrity have been sorely damaged.
23 September 2005The governor of Louisiana has requested that the U S pay the costs of police protection--one of the most basic of civil reaponsibilities--because they don't have the funds. She has also demanded that the U S rebuild New Orleans' levees to cat 5 capability and replace structures damaged as a consequence of this deficiency. What happened to the funds provided by the U S to improve the levees? Louisiana considered other projects of more significance than ramping up the levees. Corrupt government has occasioned these damages, and the U S taxpayer should not be asked to defray any of the damages suffered by these hurricanes. Unquestionably, the Mississippi river is a valuable asset to the U S economy, and its development and use are very significant options which must be faced. Rebuilding New Orleans, on the other hand, should be accomplished with private and/or local public funds.
Why was FEMA and the U S government complimented so highly by Alabama, Mississippi and Texas when they did such a crummy job in Louisiana? It could have been a fault of Louisiana.
22 September 2005It appears to me that the Congress is committing taxpayers to expenditures associated with recent hurricanes which should be borne by insurance companies. If some owners failed to have adequate coverage, it should be their loss, for the U S should not be the payor of first resort. Furthermore, it has been known for centuries that New Orleans is not a reasonable location for a port; and the proper thing to do is remove the port location as was done when Galveston proved to be too risky. Despite concerns, Galveston was rebuilt by private investors to be a pleasant city.
Many of the actions (or, more succinctly, inactions) of the governor and mayor could only be explained by a desire to enhance the critical nature of the hurricane's damages, for one cannot conceive that any in such responsible positions could fail to alert the National Guard that their services might be needed to police the city, or fail to remove several hundred buses from certain destruction when they could have been used to remove indigents to safer areas. And when one considers the reputation of the government involved, the likelihood that Louisianans and New Orleans officials in particular planned to profit from the disaster is not remote. Couple this with the fact that a procedure in effect in Texas for decades proved workable and helped mitigate the inept actions of those in Louisiana, and one must conclude that the U S taxpayer is being taken for a cleaning.
15 September 2005