THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Those immortal words were written by Thomas Paine in 1776.
I’ve commented on the reaction of the DNC to the Conservative objections to Mr. Obama’s oncoming health care steamroller. While there are many things involved in the current bill, it essentially says that the government will assume responsibility for our medical care by providing “affordable” medical insurance to all of us, both legal citizens and illegal aliens alike. I will be the first to agree that we desperately need to overhaul the health care system we have today, but I seriously question the wisdom of handing everything to an entirely new mob of federal bureaucrats! For the most part this bill, and all the rest of the loony left health proposals, do nothing more that make the government into one gigantic HMO, with all the problems they have! And of course each and every one of us is expected to happily hand the government our right to decide whether we live or die.
One part of this assault on our rights states will be a government committee with the authority to determine what medical treatment or benefits you will receive. What this means is that your health care will be rationed. The Health Choice Commissar (Czar?) will select your benefits for you, leaving you with no choice or recourse. Things start to get interesting when we read that the income of medical care providers will be completely controlled by the government, irregardless of their specialty or professional competence, there will be no judicial revue of the program and nobody can sue the Government for price fixing. Talk about a sweetheart government monopoly!
And who is going to pay the nearly one trillion dollar bill for all this? We will naturally, with increased income and corporate taxes. Further, employers must automatically enroll employees and their families into the public plan. No one will have a choice with that. Any employer with a payroll in excess of $400 thousand and above who does not provide public health care “insurance” will pay an 8% tax on all their payroll, and business with a payroll below $400 thousand will be assessed an additional payroll tax of between 2 and 6 percent. Then too, any employee who doesn’t have a government accepted health plan will pay an additional income tax of 2 ½%. Health care will be provided to all aliens, legal or otherwise, without charge, and American taxpaying citizens will pick up the tab for that as well.
Even your children aren’t safe under this program, as Obamacare is also about the government's coming into homes and assuming parental rights. Under "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children", government agents would provide parents with modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices. The bill targets specific groups as well, wherein the state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families." With this I guess we can assume that low-income families know less about parenting than middle- and upper-class families.
Just to make sure you don’t cheat on the system, Health Care Administration bureaucrats will have access to all your financial and personal records. In addition, you will be issued a mandatory National Health Care ID card. (I just knew they’d find a way to slip that national ID bit through, and I’ll bet a nickel to a stale donut that RFID chips are soon to follow!) If you have only a couple of employees, they won’t miss you either, as the bill mandates that health care officials audit the books of all employers.
Contrary to the claims of so many left wing socialists in Washington, this plan does eliminate any private health insurance over time, in that it creates a Health Care Exchange intended to bring private plans under government control, and mandates that ALL benefit packages for private Health Care must be in the Exchange, and meet government standards. Mr. Obama publicly stated that ‘Tricare’ (the medical insurance for retired military personnel) and Veterans Administration health care would not be affected… yet both will soon be absorbed into the ObamaCare system, as well be Medicare.
A short study of medical care in the now defunct Soviet Union might make you think a bit more about all this. For the most part, Soviet Doctors were little better trained than are American paramedics today, little more than very high class first aid providers. This is not to disparage our paramedics, dedicated professionals that they are, but I really don’t think I’d want any of them doing brain surgery on one of my grandkids! In the USSR, the medical field had a hard time attracting high caliber people, because even their Doctors were paid less than common laborers! You might have noticed that whenever a soviet leader became seriously ill, they were not treated in the USSR, but rather they went to Europe or the United States for their health care! All this tells me that we’ll quite likely see a booming trade in black market medical services develop! And that is somewhat scary as well. With the rationing and cost analysis of ObamaCare bean counters, if you or a loved one becomes seriously ill or injured (and can’t afford a trip to a Mexican medical clinic), you might want to get your affairs in order posthaste. It’s pretty much the same if you’re over age fifty, and not a government VIP deserving of better than average care.
If this assault on our rights passes congress, welcome to the “United Socialist States of America”, and you can wave goodbye to a nation that once valued individual rights and freedom over “security” and “comfort”. For those who might want to look for themselves, the full text of the Universal Health Scare… err… Health Care Bill currently under consideration (HR 3200) can be found at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf . It consists of 1017 pages of government double talk. You might also want to drop a line to all of your congressional representatives, voicing your opposition to this entire plan. Mention also that you are a voter, and that if they fail to vote against this federal takeover of our lives, in any of its manifestations, come next election you will surely vote against them!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Constitutional Basics
During June of 1776, the Second Continental Congress, realizing that thirteen separate and independent colonies had little chance of winning their war for independence, appointed a committee to draft what became known as the “Articles of Confederation”. This document, once ratified by the colonies in March 1781, was the basis of a political union to be known as “The United States of America”. Under this, our first constitution, the Articles set the rules for operating the new "United States" confederation, which was only allowed to make war, negotiate diplomatic agreements, and resolve disagreements regarding the western territories. The individual states retained sovereignty over all other governmental functions. But, with no authority to raise tax revenues, or to call an army into being, Congress was left with no other option than to literally beg the individual colonies for funds and troops when necessary. Further, the articles left the central government nearly powerless, in that there was no mechanism by which the individual states could be made to accede to the lawful orders of “Congress Assembled”. It soon became apparent that while the Confederation was an improvement over the prior situation, it left many of the original problems unsolved, and eventually caused deep divides between the states that the national government could not resolve.
What later became known as the Annapolis Convention was called to address the difficulties caused by the many political differences between the States. Finding themselves without a quorum, the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in a "Grand Convention" at Philadelphia in May, 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation. This Philadelphia Convention (now known as the Constitutional Convention) took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, to address the problems of governing the United States of America. Although the Convention was intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention of many of its proponents was to create a new government rather than to "fix" the existing one. George Washington was selected to preside over this convention. In late July the convention appointed a “Committee of Detail” to draft a document based on the agreements that had been hammered out. A second committee, the “Committee of Style and Arrangement” produced the final version, which was submitted for signing on September 17. Not all of the delegates were pleased with the results; some left before the ceremony, and three of those remaining refused to sign. George Mason demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the new Constitution, which was finally added and is considered the final compromise of the Convention. Of the 39 signatories, probably no one was completely satisfied, and their views were aptly stated by Benjamin Franklin who said, "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies..." On March 4, 1789, the Constitution of the United States of America became the law of the land.
The Preamble tells us that government gets its powers from "We the People," and not the other way around. The Framers of our Constitution handily gave us a limited federal government with severely limited authority which is specifically identified. Then there is the Tenth Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States . . . or to the people." And that amendment is our primary defense against abuses by the national government. A second safeguard is the separation of powers among the three branches; legislative, executive, and judicial. As Mr. Obama continues what gives every appearance of becoming a very unusual term in office, he, and a seemingly endless procession of unelected "czars" (32 at last count), would be well advised to examine the very first sentence of Article I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Only the legislature, not the executive branch via appointed Czars, is authorized to make laws. (For the moment however we could just call him "Czar Obama".) Mr. Obama is a remarkable man of course, and with 12 years as lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, he is certainly no stranger to the Constitution, and should well know that our government is “bound down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.". Yet he accepts the fashionable notion of a "living" document, which has sufficient flexibility to accommodate rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions. With this, he is happily appointing judges who "stand up for social and economic justice" and have "empathy... to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." While none of us are opposed to social and economic justice, the question is whether a judge’s ideas about those values should dictate how the Constitution and our laws are interpreted. One legal expert that I consulted informs me that once a law is passed it is most certainly “writ in stone”, and not subject to “flexible interpretation”. As the basis of all law in the United Stated is derived from our Constitution, I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if we have a flexible “living” document or not.
There are two ways our Constitution can be changed. One is through the amendment process which requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it. The second does not require those elected representatives, and is called a Constitutional Convention. Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con-Con") if two-thirds of the states request it, and there are no other rules or guidelines. We don't know how delegates would be apportioned or elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under, or whether changes to the Constitution could be made by a simple majority or a super majority. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to anything. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once claimed that "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda." All this would mean that Congress will set the rules, and the basic law of the land could be changed forever at the whim of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. While many people may deny the accusation, the far left most certainly is calling for a Con-Con.
All that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con-Con", but it doesn't set a time limit on getting that total. Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con-Con" over the last few decades for various reasons, now only two more states are required. The call from California was only to consider changes to their state constitution, but Ohio recently issued (and then withdrew) a call to consider changes to our national constitution…
Benjamin Franklin was once asked: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?" “A Republic, if you can keep it.” was his response.
What later became known as the Annapolis Convention was called to address the difficulties caused by the many political differences between the States. Finding themselves without a quorum, the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in a "Grand Convention" at Philadelphia in May, 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation. This Philadelphia Convention (now known as the Constitutional Convention) took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, to address the problems of governing the United States of America. Although the Convention was intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention of many of its proponents was to create a new government rather than to "fix" the existing one. George Washington was selected to preside over this convention. In late July the convention appointed a “Committee of Detail” to draft a document based on the agreements that had been hammered out. A second committee, the “Committee of Style and Arrangement” produced the final version, which was submitted for signing on September 17. Not all of the delegates were pleased with the results; some left before the ceremony, and three of those remaining refused to sign. George Mason demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the new Constitution, which was finally added and is considered the final compromise of the Convention. Of the 39 signatories, probably no one was completely satisfied, and their views were aptly stated by Benjamin Franklin who said, "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies..." On March 4, 1789, the Constitution of the United States of America became the law of the land.
The Preamble tells us that government gets its powers from "We the People," and not the other way around. The Framers of our Constitution handily gave us a limited federal government with severely limited authority which is specifically identified. Then there is the Tenth Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States . . . or to the people." And that amendment is our primary defense against abuses by the national government. A second safeguard is the separation of powers among the three branches; legislative, executive, and judicial. As Mr. Obama continues what gives every appearance of becoming a very unusual term in office, he, and a seemingly endless procession of unelected "czars" (32 at last count), would be well advised to examine the very first sentence of Article I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Only the legislature, not the executive branch via appointed Czars, is authorized to make laws. (For the moment however we could just call him "Czar Obama".) Mr. Obama is a remarkable man of course, and with 12 years as lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, he is certainly no stranger to the Constitution, and should well know that our government is “bound down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.". Yet he accepts the fashionable notion of a "living" document, which has sufficient flexibility to accommodate rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions. With this, he is happily appointing judges who "stand up for social and economic justice" and have "empathy... to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." While none of us are opposed to social and economic justice, the question is whether a judge’s ideas about those values should dictate how the Constitution and our laws are interpreted. One legal expert that I consulted informs me that once a law is passed it is most certainly “writ in stone”, and not subject to “flexible interpretation”. As the basis of all law in the United Stated is derived from our Constitution, I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if we have a flexible “living” document or not.
There are two ways our Constitution can be changed. One is through the amendment process which requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it. The second does not require those elected representatives, and is called a Constitutional Convention. Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con-Con") if two-thirds of the states request it, and there are no other rules or guidelines. We don't know how delegates would be apportioned or elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under, or whether changes to the Constitution could be made by a simple majority or a super majority. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to anything. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once claimed that "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda." All this would mean that Congress will set the rules, and the basic law of the land could be changed forever at the whim of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. While many people may deny the accusation, the far left most certainly is calling for a Con-Con.
All that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con-Con", but it doesn't set a time limit on getting that total. Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con-Con" over the last few decades for various reasons, now only two more states are required. The call from California was only to consider changes to their state constitution, but Ohio recently issued (and then withdrew) a call to consider changes to our national constitution…
Benjamin Franklin was once asked: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?" “A Republic, if you can keep it.” was his response.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
DNC
It would seem that the Democratic National Committee is on the warpath once again, and again claiming unfair practices are being used against them by those rotten, nasty, and of course evil, conservative Republicans. (There are “fair” practices in politics?) The DNC recently released a statement accusing Republicans of colluding with "K Street Lobbyists" to incite "angry mobs" of extremists, describing a deliberate attempt to disrupt health care town hall meetings in assorted congressional districts across the country. The statement released by DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse claims that the Republicans, desperate after “losing two elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill”, are inciting angry mobs of rabid right wing extremists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America. These mobs of extremists are trying to “break” the President and destroying his Presidency according to Mr. Woodhouse. I will note that the democrats can so easily forget the eight years of twisted statements, erroneous accusations, and often downright lies that they subjected us to during the Bush presidency. Now apparently “Republican Operatives”, utilizing funds provided by “special interests”, are bussing in “mobs” who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change that Mr. Obama was elected to bring us… well, as per the DNC that is. The statement continues; “Despite the headline grabbing nature of these angry mobs and their disruptions of events, they are not reflective of where the American people are on the issues – or the hundreds of thousands of thoughtful discussions taking place around kitchen tables, water coolers and in homes.”
Huh!... I spend a lot of time on the internet reading a wide assortment of discussions on nearly as wide a number of subjects. From what I’ve seen so far, and considering that I read discussions in liberal forums as well as conservative and moderate groups, were it up to American voters today, the entire “ObamaCare” concept would be completely dead and buried! I have news for Mr. Woodhouse as well, those “water cooler discussions” he so righteously proclaims, are apparently only held in the halls of the DNC! I look in on everything from veterans groups to space advocates, from environuts to garden societies, and more than a few political discussion groups for good measure. Discounting the few honest folks who say that they really don’t understand what the plan actually is, the “advocates”, pro and con, seem to be about evenly split, with a slight edge to the folks that don’t want anything to do with the idea. And that dear reader, includes a whole lot of “Obamamaniacs”! Several of those comments I’ve read include; “Leave it to the DNC to accuse others of "fear mongering"….they have used this as their standard tactic since before Bill. (Actually, that started with FDR.) What the DNC needs is a group of statesmen (women) to provide true leadership in the party – not Pelosi, Ried, Frank, Chuckie, Charlie and the other clowns in Washington today. Why are we not having a discussion about the attack on personal freedom that the DNC is truely engaged in? BTW – i am a registered democrate. Like Zell Miller said – the party left me a long time ago. Another includes; "Angry Mobs"?, Maybe… 'Extremists", I don't think so. Just because a person/s disagree or don't like something, doesn't make them "Extremist". But if we must be "Extremists", then so be it. Let the Extremism begin. This health care business is all a bunch of smoke in mirrors. Since when does the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many. I thought majority counted for something in a "Democracy". Or are we truly no longer a democracy. Especially after the dems comment saying they will pass health care with or without the repubs or american peoples consent.”
I like that last comment, in that “The Age of Extremism” sounds like a good description of where American politics are rapidly heading, and besides, it might be a good title for some future column!
From the opposition come such gems as; “We have all seen the video evidence of the racist idiots at Palin and McCain rallies last fall. I have seen some of the town hall videos. The president won by a large majority of the vote. We, the people have voted for heath care reform. We, the people, have won.” “A large majority of the vote”? Four percent is a large majority? Pardon me a moment while I get my eyebrow back down where it belongs… Anyway, then we have; “72% of Americans WANT a public (government) health insurance option as a choice. The majority of US citizens very intentionally elected representatives and a president who could make a significant change like this happen.” 72%... humm… if you say so… But according to the polls 52% now oppose ObamaCare. Next, another writer says; “Republicans are furious that the people just might like what the Democrats are trying to do for the people. Of course you know they don't care at all about the middle or lower class people in this Country.” (There goes that darn eyebrow again…) And for all these years I thought that the “middle class” were mostly Republican!!! One comment that the members of Congress might ponder is; “Nice how the DNC refers to informed citizens as an angry mob. Anyone who thinks the DNC (Pelosi, Obama, etc.) is looking out for anybody other than themselves clearly lives in a fantasy world. And actually it won't backfire. Those who vote for this disaster will be out of a job in 2010. The Dems are getting just what they did not want, informed people. Of course after seeing many of these posts here, you Obamaholics either don't care about the truth or are too dim to think for yourselves.”
One final quote from a young Lady in California; “Is this anything like the DNC using ACORN? No this was voting Americans, democrats and republicans, sick of the congress not listening to us.” Couldn’t have said it better myself Ma’am. What Democrats are calling ‘mob rule’ most Americans call “democracy in action.” After all, we are still allowed to speak our mind… or has team Obama outlawed that while I wasn’t looking? America is sending President Obama a message, telling him that they don’t trust big government plans for health care.
The RNC describes the DNC reaction to the people they invited to Congressional town hall meetings as; “…from the realm of the strange into the far reaches of the Twilight Zone. Average Americans are showing up at Democrat Congressional town hall events across the country to voice their frustration with the far left liberal agenda being stampeded through Congress by the Democrat majority. Mostly comprised of seniors and veterans, these large crowds at the town hall meetings are actually reading the healthcare bill and asking the tough questions. Democrats are stunned that these Americans are angry about being lied to about the government takeover of healthcare.”
Unlike a good many politicians, I make no claim to being omnipotent, but I’ve about reached the stage of making a political prophesy… If Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Ms. Pelosi, and of course the DNC, don’t get their heads out of their… the clouds, the Democratic Party will find that they’ve made a serious error in judging the temperament of the American voter!
Huh!... I spend a lot of time on the internet reading a wide assortment of discussions on nearly as wide a number of subjects. From what I’ve seen so far, and considering that I read discussions in liberal forums as well as conservative and moderate groups, were it up to American voters today, the entire “ObamaCare” concept would be completely dead and buried! I have news for Mr. Woodhouse as well, those “water cooler discussions” he so righteously proclaims, are apparently only held in the halls of the DNC! I look in on everything from veterans groups to space advocates, from environuts to garden societies, and more than a few political discussion groups for good measure. Discounting the few honest folks who say that they really don’t understand what the plan actually is, the “advocates”, pro and con, seem to be about evenly split, with a slight edge to the folks that don’t want anything to do with the idea. And that dear reader, includes a whole lot of “Obamamaniacs”! Several of those comments I’ve read include; “Leave it to the DNC to accuse others of "fear mongering"….they have used this as their standard tactic since before Bill. (Actually, that started with FDR.) What the DNC needs is a group of statesmen (women) to provide true leadership in the party – not Pelosi, Ried, Frank, Chuckie, Charlie and the other clowns in Washington today. Why are we not having a discussion about the attack on personal freedom that the DNC is truely engaged in? BTW – i am a registered democrate. Like Zell Miller said – the party left me a long time ago. Another includes; "Angry Mobs"?, Maybe… 'Extremists", I don't think so. Just because a person/s disagree or don't like something, doesn't make them "Extremist". But if we must be "Extremists", then so be it. Let the Extremism begin. This health care business is all a bunch of smoke in mirrors. Since when does the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many. I thought majority counted for something in a "Democracy". Or are we truly no longer a democracy. Especially after the dems comment saying they will pass health care with or without the repubs or american peoples consent.”
I like that last comment, in that “The Age of Extremism” sounds like a good description of where American politics are rapidly heading, and besides, it might be a good title for some future column!
From the opposition come such gems as; “We have all seen the video evidence of the racist idiots at Palin and McCain rallies last fall. I have seen some of the town hall videos. The president won by a large majority of the vote. We, the people have voted for heath care reform. We, the people, have won.” “A large majority of the vote”? Four percent is a large majority? Pardon me a moment while I get my eyebrow back down where it belongs… Anyway, then we have; “72% of Americans WANT a public (government) health insurance option as a choice. The majority of US citizens very intentionally elected representatives and a president who could make a significant change like this happen.” 72%... humm… if you say so… But according to the polls 52% now oppose ObamaCare. Next, another writer says; “Republicans are furious that the people just might like what the Democrats are trying to do for the people. Of course you know they don't care at all about the middle or lower class people in this Country.” (There goes that darn eyebrow again…) And for all these years I thought that the “middle class” were mostly Republican!!! One comment that the members of Congress might ponder is; “Nice how the DNC refers to informed citizens as an angry mob. Anyone who thinks the DNC (Pelosi, Obama, etc.) is looking out for anybody other than themselves clearly lives in a fantasy world. And actually it won't backfire. Those who vote for this disaster will be out of a job in 2010. The Dems are getting just what they did not want, informed people. Of course after seeing many of these posts here, you Obamaholics either don't care about the truth or are too dim to think for yourselves.”
One final quote from a young Lady in California; “Is this anything like the DNC using ACORN? No this was voting Americans, democrats and republicans, sick of the congress not listening to us.” Couldn’t have said it better myself Ma’am. What Democrats are calling ‘mob rule’ most Americans call “democracy in action.” After all, we are still allowed to speak our mind… or has team Obama outlawed that while I wasn’t looking? America is sending President Obama a message, telling him that they don’t trust big government plans for health care.
The RNC describes the DNC reaction to the people they invited to Congressional town hall meetings as; “…from the realm of the strange into the far reaches of the Twilight Zone. Average Americans are showing up at Democrat Congressional town hall events across the country to voice their frustration with the far left liberal agenda being stampeded through Congress by the Democrat majority. Mostly comprised of seniors and veterans, these large crowds at the town hall meetings are actually reading the healthcare bill and asking the tough questions. Democrats are stunned that these Americans are angry about being lied to about the government takeover of healthcare.”
Unlike a good many politicians, I make no claim to being omnipotent, but I’ve about reached the stage of making a political prophesy… If Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Ms. Pelosi, and of course the DNC, don’t get their heads out of their… the clouds, the Democratic Party will find that they’ve made a serious error in judging the temperament of the American voter!
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Billion?
The next time you hear a politician casually use the word "billion", carefully rethink having "politicians" spending YOUR tax money. A billion really is a difficult number to envision after all, but one advertising agency put the figure into perspective a few years ago.
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes at the rate our government is spending our money.
In the US, one billion is one thousand million (i.e., it has 9 zeros and equals 1,000,000,000 or
109). A billion dollars in one dollar bills would make a pile of cash 20 feet tall, 31 ¼ feet wide, and over 50 feet long. A single stack of one dollar bills would be over 57 miles high! This is also what an elementary school class of 400 students can expect to earn in their entire lifetimes, combined! In the arcane world of finance and mathematics, the next magic number is “trillion”. OK, how big is a trillion? Well, in the U.S., one trillion is written as "1" followed by 12 zeros, or (1,000,000,000,000). One trillion seconds of clock time = (1012 sec) / ( 3.16 x 107 sec/yr) = 31,546 years! I think I’ll stop here, as my calculator doesn’t have enough digits to count this high!
The Outstanding Public Debt (National Debt) as of 26 Jul 2009 at 06:26:20 PM, GMT was $11,616,677,905,857, or, a bit more than eleven and a half trillion dollars. So, with the estimated population of the United States being three hundred and six million, each citizen's share of the national debt is $37,886.28. As an interesting side note, in 1791 our national debt was a bit over 75 million dollars. By the end of the Civil War in 1865, it was about two and a half billion dollars. Even with the tremendous expense of WW II, we owed “only” two hundred seventy billion dollars! So today we owe something like forty times as much!? I realize that the cold war was expensive, but really…
Now, with our current economic crunch, those miraculous people we send to Washington want to double even that ridiculous figure! Neil Barofsky, the Inspector General of the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” claims that the price tag for the bailout could reach $23.7 trillion! Apparently suffering from a touch of sticker shock, the senior Republican on the oversight committee (Rep. Darrell Issa) says, "If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn't even come close to just $1 trillion -- $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure." "The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn't even imaginable." Your tax dollars at work I presume…
At the county level our tax load works out to six or seven hundred dollars a head per year, depending on what the Commissioners have in mind for us in the next year. Outrageous I’d say, but for the most part we can see what we’re getting for our money, and I think most of us are “reasonably” satisfied. At the state level we get hooked for a bit more, with the 2008 tax bill averaging $3,670 per person. But still, we can see where much of that’s going as well, even though the folks in the statehouse don’t seem to know what a budget is. Then of course we have the federal government, where our congressmen (and women) vie for the “spendthrift of the year” award, and the president seems to think that money grows on trees! It’s funny though, back when I was a teenager my Dad often accused me of thinking that money grew on trees… then I had to start working for a living and my attitude changed. Perhaps we should try that with Washington… The universal health insurance plans all appear too complex and expensive to pass both houses. The cap-and-trade emissions bill with its huge costs that will have to be passed on to American producers and consumers seems like an act of national self flagration. The $787 billion stimulus bill has done absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy, so we probably will need "Stimulus II" before long. With that track record, our representatives want to continue shoveling our money into the fire!? HELLO... WASHINGTON… Are your calculators broken??
(Incidentally, there’s an interactive “cap and trade” tax calculator on-line that will give you an idea of the new “hidden” taxes; http://www.taxfoundation.org/capandtrade )
In 1953 journalist Garet Garrett published "The People's Pottage" which opens with: "There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom." Garrett’s idea was that while America appeared the same, an internal revolution had taken place that was now irreversible. We had only need glance at where we were before the New Deal, where we are now, and where we are headed to see how far we are off the course the Founding Fathers had set for our republic. Keep in mind that the bugaboo of taxes drove the American Revolution, for we were then a tax hating, liberty-loving people. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called George III a tyrant for having "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." When "Silent Cal" Coolidge left office in 1929, the U.S. government was spending 3 percent of the entire gross domestic product. By 1932, Americans “trusting” government got us the beginnings of a very expensive social welfare program(s). Today however, even with seven out of ten Americans claiming they distrust government, Obama's first budget will swallow 28 percent of the entire GDP, while state and local governments grab another 15 percent. Even with overlap, government will still consume 40 percent of the GDP, approaching the highest WW II rate! And now Obama plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and increase the income tax rate to nearly 40%. Combined state and local income taxes can run another 10%. If you’re self-employed, payroll taxes can add another 15% on the first $106,800 of wages of all workers. Medicare takes about 2.9 percent of all wages over that. Then there are sales taxes that can run to about 8%, property taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, and "sin taxes" on booze, cigarettes, and soon I suspect, hot dogs, soft drinks, and probably ball game tickets!
So what did George III ever do that could compare with what our own government is doing today?
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes at the rate our government is spending our money.
In the US, one billion is one thousand million (i.e., it has 9 zeros and equals 1,000,000,000 or
109). A billion dollars in one dollar bills would make a pile of cash 20 feet tall, 31 ¼ feet wide, and over 50 feet long. A single stack of one dollar bills would be over 57 miles high! This is also what an elementary school class of 400 students can expect to earn in their entire lifetimes, combined! In the arcane world of finance and mathematics, the next magic number is “trillion”. OK, how big is a trillion? Well, in the U.S., one trillion is written as "1" followed by 12 zeros, or (1,000,000,000,000). One trillion seconds of clock time = (1012 sec) / ( 3.16 x 107 sec/yr) = 31,546 years! I think I’ll stop here, as my calculator doesn’t have enough digits to count this high!
The Outstanding Public Debt (National Debt) as of 26 Jul 2009 at 06:26:20 PM, GMT was $11,616,677,905,857, or, a bit more than eleven and a half trillion dollars. So, with the estimated population of the United States being three hundred and six million, each citizen's share of the national debt is $37,886.28. As an interesting side note, in 1791 our national debt was a bit over 75 million dollars. By the end of the Civil War in 1865, it was about two and a half billion dollars. Even with the tremendous expense of WW II, we owed “only” two hundred seventy billion dollars! So today we owe something like forty times as much!? I realize that the cold war was expensive, but really…
Now, with our current economic crunch, those miraculous people we send to Washington want to double even that ridiculous figure! Neil Barofsky, the Inspector General of the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” claims that the price tag for the bailout could reach $23.7 trillion! Apparently suffering from a touch of sticker shock, the senior Republican on the oversight committee (Rep. Darrell Issa) says, "If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn't even come close to just $1 trillion -- $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure." "The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn't even imaginable." Your tax dollars at work I presume…
At the county level our tax load works out to six or seven hundred dollars a head per year, depending on what the Commissioners have in mind for us in the next year. Outrageous I’d say, but for the most part we can see what we’re getting for our money, and I think most of us are “reasonably” satisfied. At the state level we get hooked for a bit more, with the 2008 tax bill averaging $3,670 per person. But still, we can see where much of that’s going as well, even though the folks in the statehouse don’t seem to know what a budget is. Then of course we have the federal government, where our congressmen (and women) vie for the “spendthrift of the year” award, and the president seems to think that money grows on trees! It’s funny though, back when I was a teenager my Dad often accused me of thinking that money grew on trees… then I had to start working for a living and my attitude changed. Perhaps we should try that with Washington… The universal health insurance plans all appear too complex and expensive to pass both houses. The cap-and-trade emissions bill with its huge costs that will have to be passed on to American producers and consumers seems like an act of national self flagration. The $787 billion stimulus bill has done absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy, so we probably will need "Stimulus II" before long. With that track record, our representatives want to continue shoveling our money into the fire!? HELLO... WASHINGTON… Are your calculators broken??
(Incidentally, there’s an interactive “cap and trade” tax calculator on-line that will give you an idea of the new “hidden” taxes; http://www.taxfoundation.org/capandtrade )
In 1953 journalist Garet Garrett published "The People's Pottage" which opens with: "There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom." Garrett’s idea was that while America appeared the same, an internal revolution had taken place that was now irreversible. We had only need glance at where we were before the New Deal, where we are now, and where we are headed to see how far we are off the course the Founding Fathers had set for our republic. Keep in mind that the bugaboo of taxes drove the American Revolution, for we were then a tax hating, liberty-loving people. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called George III a tyrant for having "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." When "Silent Cal" Coolidge left office in 1929, the U.S. government was spending 3 percent of the entire gross domestic product. By 1932, Americans “trusting” government got us the beginnings of a very expensive social welfare program(s). Today however, even with seven out of ten Americans claiming they distrust government, Obama's first budget will swallow 28 percent of the entire GDP, while state and local governments grab another 15 percent. Even with overlap, government will still consume 40 percent of the GDP, approaching the highest WW II rate! And now Obama plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and increase the income tax rate to nearly 40%. Combined state and local income taxes can run another 10%. If you’re self-employed, payroll taxes can add another 15% on the first $106,800 of wages of all workers. Medicare takes about 2.9 percent of all wages over that. Then there are sales taxes that can run to about 8%, property taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, and "sin taxes" on booze, cigarettes, and soon I suspect, hot dogs, soft drinks, and probably ball game tickets!
So what did George III ever do that could compare with what our own government is doing today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)