Oh great!

Oh great! Now that there is same sex marriage in New York and they are the trendsetters for the country, it will expand everywhere. Who's next, Iowa? What? Oh, they already have it. Well, it is a good thing that 41 other states have banned same sex marriage either by law enactment or constitutional amendment. That will stop those gays right in their tracks.

Except for this little document that says that every state must accept the legal documents from other states. This document was written a long time ago and it isn't like we still follow it or anything. It is the United States Constitution. Now I understand that the U. S. Constitution trumps state constitutions and state laws. In fact, conservative U. S. Supreme Court judges which dominate the U. S. Supreme Court and got their conservative support by saying that they are strict constructionists and don't think that Supreme Court judges should be activists judges making up laws from the bench, should be supporting this section of the U. S. Constitution (Article 4 Section 1) which says that every state must accept legal documents from other states. This is why when you get a driver's license in one state, you can legally drive in another state. This is why a couple that gets married in Illinois (which I did), is still married when they move to another state, like Texas, Georgia, California, and Wisconsin (which I did) is still married in each of those states. Otherwise guys (and some gals) would simply change states and claim they were no longer married.

Sooo.... a couple that gets married in Iowa and moves to one of these aforementioned states would still be married, right? In fact, would they not still be married in each of the 41 other states that passed something legal that denies same sex marriage? Quick, what is your answer?

Stumped? Oh, I forgot to tell you the genders of the couple that got married in Iowa. Does it matter, by law? Does a legal marriage in Dubuque, IA still constitute a legal marriage when the couple moves across the river into Wisconsin? Where would a U. S. Supreme Court justice look for an answer to that issue? The U. S. Constitution? The Wisconsin Constitution? Iowa law? What ruling would a judge come up with if they wanted to interpret the U. S. Constitution strictly? Where would they justify that a man/woman marriage is the only one ever meant by our founding fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. In denying that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, wouldn't that make a U. S. Supreme Court justice an activist judge, interpreting the U. S. Constitution in a way that changes what the U. S. Constitution literally says?

Should same sex marriage be allowed anywhere and everywhere? Look around. Denying that there really are homosexual couples, leaves you looking much like an ostrich. Some people point to their Bible, church, religious leaders, and anything else to take on a holier than everyone else stance. Some say discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Let's end discrimination.

This is a generational divide as well as religious and political. Generally speaking younger people are more accepting of differences between people and older folks are less tolerant of differences. In the last 15 years approval for same sex marriage has gone from 27% to 53%. While some object to the comparison, this is much like the civil rights movement. It is coming. Move forward or be left behind.

Finally, let's not get addle brained by the anti-homosexual groups that want to compare same sex marriage with marrying multiple persons, or marrying a goat. I'd laugh at those people, except they are serious and dangerous.

Same sex marriage, legal in 6 states and Washington D. C. and counting. As with the civil rights movement, it is a long time in coming and long overdue.

He came from another state. He volunteered in the recall elections of Republicans, working first in the Hudson, WI area, and then, on a visit to Milwaukee, working on the Sandy Pasch campaign north of Milwaukee in Shorewood. He volunteered to go door to door. He met lots of people. It was the Saturday before Father's Day and many people were home. Some asked him questions about the candidate, but the most interesting were the questions about what he was doing and why. "Are you from around here?" "Are you a teacher?" Sometimes it was just a statement..."I don't like what Clinton did with that gay marriage issue." "I'm not in favor of all these recalls. That's not the way to change politicians. Wait til their election." He is politically savvy and knows how to respond to those comments. "I've lived most of my life in Wisconsin and just took a job in Minnesota." "I am a teacher...on the college level." "Changing politicians now stops a disastrous direction Wisconsin is on now." Most of the people were very supportive. One yelled at him to "Go away!" Of the contacts he was to make, he saw real people in about half. He wanted to make a difference and this was an excellent way to do so. He made his dad proud and didn't even know that this was a great Father's Day present. He had wanted me to go along, but I had other commitments that couldn't be broken at the last minute. I didn't know he was going until he arrived Friday night. He questioned where my involvement was. I had been saying I was going to donate money to the campaigns. I haven't. Tonight, I'm going on line to give some money to the cause. I'll find my way onto the campaign trail. But, tonight, I can do something.

No one can do everything, but everyone can do something. Get involved in whatever way you can. Change happens when individuals act. Individual action causes change.

Thanks to my son for re-inspiring me.

If you haven't already this weekend, thank a dad. In sadness, in anger, in joy, in trials, in desperation, they've done the best they could for you.

Then, take action. Wishing, hoping, wanting change won't happen without your help. Do something.

"In a Democracy, people get.........

"In a Democracy, people get the government they deserve." Alexis de Tocqueville

But wait, those of us that live in Wisconsin, surely don't deserve what has befallen us. Do we? The answer to that, is .....yes. Joanne Kloppenberg was about to lose to David Prosser in the State Supreme Court race by a gigantic margin--probably 2-1. Then the budget protests started and people who knew nothing about that election got involved and almost, almost, just nearly barely, pulled out a win for Kloppenberg. Oh, so close that 7000+ votes hidden from view on election night turned the tide and a win for Prosser. Oh well, maybe we'll try again next time.

The next time is near, very near. What is at stake? The entire future direction of Wisconsin is at stake. Gov. Scott Walker and his majority of Republicans in both houses of the state Congress just passed a budget bill that, and this is from Republican leaning new outlets, cuts aid to public schools, promotes money for private schools, cuts aid to the poorest in Wisconsin, forces public employees to hand back some of their pay, attacks unions (both public and private) and gives tax breaks (read lots of money) to businesses and the richest in Wisconsin. What paved the way for this? The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that, essentially,the bill passed by Republicans was legal and that the lower court that ruled that the Republicans had violated Wisconsin's open meeting law and invalidated the law was wrong and overturned that decision. Do you have to even ask which side of the 4-3 decision David Prosser was on? (By the way, Prosser wrote a separate majority opinion that basically says that regarding legislative rules, if the legislature violates one of its rules, that in effect, changes the rule. True. Read it.)

So what is the next opportunity for changing things? Oh, that is very near. Oops, maybe not as close as you might like. There were going to be recall elections July 12th. Six Republicans and three Democrats were to face a mid-term re-election challenge. But the Republicans decided that they could delay these elections if there were too many candidates in the election and that election was changed into a primary election instead of a final election. So, they got Republicans to gather enough signatures to run as a Democrat, forcing a Democratic primary on July 12th and pushing the main election back to August. This would give Republicans more time to mount a defense (read money) of their seats and more time for time passage, in that as time passes, voters will lose steam and fervor over what brought about the recall elections in the first place.

If you are now thinking "Oh, good I can sit back and wait to vote until August.", you need to change your thinking. Recalling six Republicans takes money and volunteers. Those are needed now. Money is needed to combat big Republican money which is coming in large amounts. Volunteers are needed for canvassing and phone calls. There are also three Democrats that are defending themselves against a recall election. They need the same things, money and volunteers. What is at stake? Walker's agenda is not done. Changing Wisconsin to a "Right to work state" which threatens all unions and threatens all workers' salaries will be coming soon. Tapping into the Wisconsin Retirement System pension fund that is doing quite well is on the agenda. Giving corporations and businesses even more incentives (read money back to them) for running a business in Wisconsin is definitely going to be emphasized. Redrawing congressional districts to favor Republicans is coming up soon too. Challenge anything Walker does and the State Supreme Court will back Walker up. What is at stake? Check out the importance of the Prosser election and the 4-3 conservative majority on the state Supreme Court. What else could be done? Look for social changes that would douse same sex unions, restrictions on abortions, including health care for the poor, support for religions that may not be yours (besides support for religious, private schools via vouchers), restrictions on voting (already here), further cutbacks to education, increases to college tuition, and, and, and.....

The recall elections need a Democratic sweep to change Madison, to stop the radical agenda that has already been passed and will be pushed for in the future. Some are waiting for a recall effort on Scott Walker, which cannot occur until he has been in office for at least one year, or next January. Waiting until then will allow an unfettered reign by Walker and the Republicans to push through anything....anything....anything for the next eight months.

ABSOLUTE POWER

Many people believe that if the executive branch is controlled by one party, the legislature should be, at least, partly controlled by the other party. That is not the case for the next two years if nothing changes. The Republicans have absolute power and a Supreme Court to back them up. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely..."--Lord Acton

In a Democracy, people get the government they deserve. What do you deserve? If you deserve better, act! If you haven't liked the past six months, you will hate the next 18 months.

Get the real government you deserve.

THE STAKES COULD NOT BE BIGGER

Any action by a politician can usually be measured by how that action is received by the voters in the form of an election.

Now the voters of Wisconsin will state with their ballot if the anti-union laws were a good or bad idea. That action gets the ultimate test April 5th.

In Wisconsin, the national news battle between newly elected Governor Scott Walker and worker unions will get a good test of what Wisconsinites think about the actions Walker and his Republican legislature have taken. April 5th is Spring election time in Wisconsin and foremost on the ballot is the race for Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice who earns a ten year term upon winning this election. This pits incumbent David Prosser against challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. Republicans are backing Prosser, while Democrats and those anti-union busting protesters in Madison, WI are supporting Kloppenburg.

What is at stake?

Prosser will rule on the state Supreme Court for the new laws that Walker has pushed through. It is presumed that Kloppenburg will rule more favorably for challenges to the new laws.

If Prosser wins, Walker and state Republicans will claim that the voting public obviously supports the new anti-union laws. Should Kloppenburg win, the anti-Walker group will claim that their side was right and the public vote supports that claim. It would also give a big push to the recall efforts that are going on around the state against the eight Republican state senators that are eligible for recall while possibly dousing the same efforts against eight Democratic state senators. At the same time, some anti-Walkerites have set a countdown clock for recalling Walker. By state law, no elected official can be recalled in their first year in office, so Walker could not be recalled until January, 2012.

Are the battle lines really that clearly drawn between Prosser and Kloppenburg?

Money has already poured into Wisconsin from outside the state for both candidates. Republicans see this as a definitive test for their attempt to reduce the power of unions--permanently. Unions and Democrats see this as a battle for survival. The new laws, I've labeled as anti-union, could not be called anything else. State workers would lose collective bargaining rights, rights to grievance, the right to have dues collection by employers, and a state requirement that unions hold an election every year to recertify their union. This all the while the state dictates to workers what can and cannot be bargained. State employees could no longer bargain over health benefits, sick time, personal leave, grievances, discipline, working conditions, and a host of other items that most people take for granted. They could only bargain over wages, but limited to the inflation rate. So, if inflation increased by 1.5%, state unions could bargain to get that amount (not guaranteed) or less. AND, they would be barred by state law from striking or taking any job action that could be considered work stoppage. In other words, the end of unions.

The power of five.

State officials predict the this will be a typical election turnout where only 20% of the eligible voters with actually go out and vote. That means that each voter has the power of five. Each vote is more powerful because of all the non-voters. Usually incumbents hope for a low voter turnout, believing that name recognition alone will put them through with so few votes being cast. Will that happen this time? Will the outrage from Madison's throngs continue and manifest itself into active voters? Was Walker right or wrong? Defeating a supportive incumbent could sent a strong message that the wrong way was chosen. Re-electing a supportive incumbent could embolden the majority to complete their permanent takeover.

Side note, not noted too much.

As reported in the Milwaukee Journal this past week, David Prosser has not gotten along with other Supreme Court Justices in a very loud and vocal way. It was reported that Prosser in a heated discussion with another Justice called her a "bitch". Prosser admitted doing this, so that part of the story is not in dispute. He went on to claim that the other justice provoked him and blamed her for his outburst.

That sounds familiar.

Where have I heard that line of reasoning before?

Oh yes. That is the line that spouse abusers use to explain why they had to batter their spouse. She/he provoked me. She/he did not do________________ which I wanted done or they ___________ which they know sets me off.

That is the line that rapists use to explain how the woman deserved what she got because she provoked/teased/dressed in such a way that she wanted it.

Yes. A Supreme Court justice whom we hope judges things/events fairly, impartially, passively, unemotionally screaming at another Supreme Court justice that she was a "bitch" AND she deserved it because she provoked him. Let's all teach our children and other adults that this is acceptable behavior. This is the way society should treat each other. Look at who is setting the example--openly, defiantly, with bravado, without apology, without regret, defending this act of civility. How do you want your Supreme Court justice to act both in society, in public and on the bench?

Get Out The Vote on April 5th for your next Supreme Court justice.

Where have I been? Terribly depressed.

Sorry for the long absence. Whenever I'd sit down to write again, events raced past my "latest". How to write when events were changing so quickly. The long absence has led to a long blog. As I've been telling people lately, "Hang in there."

Regarding the events in Madison, WI, and now to other states as well, my feelings were that the Republicans' push to cripple unionism would not be stopped. While it was encouraging to visit the protests in Madison, (and nearly every crowd report seemed on the light side) and it was encouraging and uplifting to see "the people" wanting to take back their government, it seemed so inevitable that the union busting bill would become law. The Republicans tried to take cover by tying union busting with balancing the state's budget. But, when the unions agreed to the monetary needs of the governor, and the Republicans stripped the bill of all economic concerns so the Republicans could pass the anti-union bill without any financial concerns where the budget was concerned, the cover was blown away. Most people, including union members, agreed that the state employees would pay more for insurance and pensions. Once that was secured, the move to strip state unions of all organization rights made less and less sense. Now, Governor Walker said this stripping unions of all rights was needed to allow local governments to balance their budgets. This, of course, would be necessary since Walker's budget included slashing state funding for cities, counties, and school districts and the state's reduced funding for those governmental bodies would cause them a deficit and cuts would be needed. Those governmental units would need to bust their union contracts just like Walker was doing with the state employees unions.

Was this really going to solve the financial problem?

This is the key question. Does Walker's plan work? And, at whose expense does he balance the state budget? Well, middle class Americans get hit the hardest. Many thousands of public employee workers will lose income by paying more of their pension and health care and in some cases reduced salary. Many will face layoffs(read no job) resulting in increased unemployment.

Maybe, if all cuts in funding to local governments by the state could be balanced off equally with the proposed reduction in local costs, this has a chance of working. However, Milwaukee's mayor indicated that this can't be done since such a large percentage of the city's budget is for police and fire protection, both of which are not affected by the new law. With those protected, Milwaukee and other cities with the same problem (lots) will have to make deeper cuts to government provided services such as transportation, public libraries, public museums, street repair, garbage pick-up, snow plowing, health care, and anything that requires someone in government doing anything for a citizen. Some school district are suggesting that even with new union bargaining rules in effect, they will have to lay off (read no job) 10%-15% or more of their work force, including teachers, teacher aides, security aides, secretaries, maintenance workers, and delay implementing repair projects, new teaching tools like computers and books, and increase class sizes. Some may have to eliminate extra curricula programs like the arts, sports, and cut back on educationally sound items like field trips, training, and other programs.

Isn't this what the people of Wisconsin wanted?

Didn't the people of Wisconsin elect Walker? Isn't this what they wanted?

Some are probably thrilled with Walker's actions. At the start of his proposals, people who were anti-union, non-union, or not clear on the topic thought that his proposal to get union members to pay more for their pensions and health care were sound and fair. However, once he got that economic concession from unions, it became that Walker was after much more. Politics rose up, big time. Crushing the unions and their continued support for Democrats became more important than fixing the budget. If Walker to do great damage to unions where they were forced to hold an election every year to see if their members wanted to stay in a union, if he could stop the automatic deduction from their paychecks for union dues (make unions go and get their union dues directly), if he could stop unions from collective bargaining, reducing the need for a union, and if he could limit what could be bargained over (wages only, held to the inflation rate), then he could cut off the funding of Democrats by union political action committees and stop the communicating to members to get out and vote by union leaders. IF Walker could accomplish all of that quickly once in office, he could create a weakened opponent and turn Wisconsin permanently into a "red" state. Republicans would have a tremendous advantage and could continue to get elected indefinitely. This was worth the turmoil. The Republicans finally decided to split the financial from the union busting and passed the anti-union bill without any Democrat around. The politics of situation overrode the cover they sought in putting the anti-union legislation in the budget bill. They decided if they could get the bill through, they could withstand the political heat such a law would create. They would have crushed the unions and the Democrats. They win. They always knew they would. So did I.

I have been terribly depressed.

However, this ain't over. Recall elections for 16 state senators are underway. Eight Democratic and eight Republican state senators are facing recall. Will any of these succeed and change the make-up of the state senate? That depends. I can stay depressed or I can get involved. Read that last sentence and apply it to yourself. Individual action causes change. What can I do to change things that thousands of protesters couldn't do? The thousands of protesters did accomplish something. They made this issue a big deal. There was no quick passage of Walker's original proposal. They activated thousands of people to get involved and in some cases bring recall to the perpetrators.

What can I do? (Again, apply to yourself)

If I am not in a recall district, I can volunteer time and/or money. I can write letters to the editor. I can go to protest meetings, attend forums, ask questions. I can work for candidates by volunteering time to pass out flyers, put up signs, work phones, get others involved. I may not be able to do all of these things, but I can do something. Or, I can remain depressed and wonder how this all happened and why didn't someone do something to change it.

I refuse to remain depressed. Individual action does cause change. It is the only thing that does.

The Unions are killing us!!! Run for your lives!!!

What everyone already knows.

Everyone knows that the all the problems in Wisconsin, and probably everywhere else too, have been caused by unions. New Governor Scott Walker (R-Wis) has decided that the state's budget deficit of (supposedly) $3 billion was caused by unions. He must believe this since he has decided that the way to eliminate the state's deficit is by eliminating collective bargaining, forcing unions to collect their own dues, and forcing unions to have their own membership vote every year on whether they want to continue as a union. Now this only applies to public employee unions, which have obviously destroyed Wisconsin's budget, except for police unions, fire department unions, and the state police union, all of which did support Walker during his election bid. But, surely that is not the reason they got exempted where all other state employee unions are included. Governor Walker has said that this legislation is needed to fix the budget deficit and has convinced a large portion of the public to agree.

However....

However, did the unions really cause the estimated $3,000,000,000 budget shortfall? Really? Public employee unions have bargained for the salary and benefits they receive. In some cases they have given up salary increases for benefit gains. Untaxed benefits were worth more to employees than taxable salary. This give back helped the employer as well as they spent less on benefits than they would have on salary. This type of bargaining was beneficial to both sides. Now, years later, employers want workers to pay for those benefits that include health care and pension with no concern for what happened previously. And, with no compensation for what is being asked to give up.

Is it possible that some other force has caused the budget deficit? What increases have taken place in the seat of government, Madison. What is the budget increase for the legislative branch, the judicial branch, the governor's office? What programs have been approved? What highway projects have been approved? What (fill in the blank here) has been approved? Is it possible that there are many sources of increases that have all contributed to the budget deficit?

Oops, I've only been talking about one side of the problem, cuts. As with any budget, there are at least two ways to balance a budget. This is done just as any home does it. You can cut expenses and/or increase revenue. What??!!! Are you suggesting raising taxes? That is absolutely taboo! Who can afford paying more in taxes? I'm guessing those that make the most money. As on the national stage, could taxes be raised on those making more that $250,000 a year without cramping their life style too much? Probably. Would this really bring in enough money to make a difference? That is an easy math problem. Whatever that amount might be, it would be less money that has to be cut. The only way someone would not consider that option would be if they were beholding to those being taxed. Surely Governor Walker isn't afraid of the richest in Wisconsin. After all, he took on the state employee unions. Cuts and tax increases help get to the balanced budget everyone seeks.

The alternative is to have massive cuts throughout the state. Walker has already indicated that reducing aid to the UW system, reducing aid to all public school districts, forcing state employees to take days off without pay, firing employees, reducing health care to the poorest in Wisconsin, and other devastating cuts are all being considered. Looking just at school districts, school boards have little wiggle room due to 16 years of revenue caps and other laws that have squeezed them financially. One obvious reality is for school districts to increase class size so they will need fewer teachers. Who can argue with new class sizes of 40-45? Suck it up teachers. Suck it up parents. Suck it up students.

Right now

But, right now, the governor wants to end collective bargaining rights and other anti-union measures. Isn't that the best thing to do now? Well, let's look at what Republicans have been saying, certainly ever since President Obama was elected, but prior to that as well--let's have smaller government. Get government out of controlling people's lives. Stop the nanny state where government thinks they know better than the people. Doesn't dictating to people what rights they can have or not have regarding unions is putting government in the position of making people's choices for them. Definitely involvement in your life, regardless of what you want. Smaller government that takes sides in labor issues? That sounds like controlling government that wants to involve itself in areas that should be left to the people. Does Walker know better than the people what the people want? Well, he might turn out to be a benevolent dictator who does what is best for his subjects, er, people. Walker knows what is best for you and collective bargaining and protection by the union is not what is best for you.

Everyone knows that the unions are killing us. Walker knows best. Run for your lives.

Let everyone fend for themselves!

Let everyone fend for themselves.

The biggest issue in Wisconsin and some other states is how to fix the state's budgetary crisis. The new governor in Wisconsin has decided that the state employees' unions are to blame. Many state employees don't contribute to their own pensions or to their health insurance premiums. So to balance the budget, he has proposed and has the backing of his party's (Republican) assembly and senate majorities to pass a bill to eliminate collective bargaining and turn the Wisconsin into a right to work state, which for unions is much more ominous than the title suggests.

Are unions obsolete? Are they not just money grubbers, who in the public sector, only feed on the taxpaying public? Who needs them? Some workers in the public arena, teachers, police, fire fighters, nurses, emergency medical technicians, social workers, clerks, secretaries, and a whole host of positions agree with this. Some are forced to pay a certain amount in dues to a union they don't want. When asked about this a couple of years ago by a new teacher, who did not like paying for union dues, I reminded him that the job he walked into with a pension, health insurance, optional life insurance, dental insurance, optional savings plans, sick days, relatively controlled working conditions, and protection from overbearing administrators was the result of years of sacrifice and hard work by the union and its members. We paid little of our health insurance because, in negotiations, we took less in salary (for many years, in fact). The benefit and salary package that he walked into was not the result of the school district being nice. They would love to pay less, not provide insurance or sick days or pension benefits, but by collective bargaining, this is there for all teachers, new or old.

Today

Most workers have benefited from unions whether they ever belonged to one or not. While I'm not going into the history of unions, take a look at one issue and debate that. We currently have a minimum wage law. This came about by the work of unions along with legislators. Should we keep that law? Why not let the market decide wages? If someone will only work for at least $10 an hour, they will have to compete with someone willing to work for $5 an hour. Let employers/companies put out a wage and see if anyone wants to work for that amount. If companies advertised that without that law (it could easily be repealed in today's climate), they are paying $5/hour would anyone come in and apply? If not, and they offered $6/hour, would anyone apply? At some point, the job market would define what salaries should be and it may be less than today's minimum wage. If a hired worker wanted more, they could be replaced with a lower salaried person, firings could be at the company's whim. Actually this could lead us back to the good old days--the late 1800's and early 1900's when companies had all the power, union organizers could be fired and violently removed from the company's gates. Seeking even cheaper workers, we could lower the working age. We have too many slackers wasting taxpayers' dollars in schools now. Let's put those little buggers to work!

No one is really suggesting that we go back to the days of child labor, crushing poverty, and lax labor laws. But, the elimination of collective bargaining is a start.

Do we really want everyone to fend for themselves? Ask someone who wants a union and is stopped at every turn by their company. Check out what Wal-mart has done where employees have attempted to start a union. They aren't the only ones.

Finally

Today in Madison, WI thousands of people are marching to stop the bill that would eliminate collective bargaining for public employees. Sadly, they are probably not going to succeed. This is the second day of marches to the capitol. Following yesterday's march and protest, Republican leaders announced that they had enough votes (from Republicans only) to pass this new legislation. This bill has caused enough concern, that enough teachers in Madison, did not go to work so they could join with thousands of others in protest, that the Madison school district closed for the day!

How to succeed:

The action by Madison teachers needs to be followed by ALL public employees. As has happened in other countries, the system needs to be shut down. The system is everything. ALL public employees need to demonstrate how needed they really are. What happens if many school districts close, if the employees that take care of government business stop doing that business. In France, buses, trains, airports, government offices and lots more got shut down. That made a difference.

Repercussions

Yes, there could be repercussions. Some will be docked pay for missing work. Some will call in sick (and be challenged). Some may lose their jobs or a promotion. But, look at what power the people have. In Egypt, the people showed power, in the early union movements in this country, the people showed power, in today's society, we are not powerless. We just need to act.

INDIVIDUAL ACTION CAUSES CHANGE

It is the only thing that does cause change.

Let's not all fend for ourselves.

The best game in town

The National Football League is down to the final four teams. Excitement abounds, especially if you are in one of the remaining cities or are a fan of one of the finalists. The news/sports media are all agog over match-ups, history, speculations, and personal stories concerning these teams. Some of the newspapers I've seen start their sports sections on the front page and sports pages' first page scream headlines. There will be more about the players, coaches, fans, and pundits written this week and in the following two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl that fans will read than what they might normally read about politicians, government, and political races. While this is a great diversion from the seriousness/silliness of politics, government still impacts us all with decisions that are being made now. In Wisconsin, new governor, Scott Walker's first piece of legislation (AB1-assembly bill number one) is to place caps on how much money companies can be held liable for in lawsuits against them. This is being proposed as a job creation bill. While there are many provisions to this bill, basically, it would limit the amount of money someone could win against a company that did them wrong. A cap of $750,000 would apply to some lawsuits that claim "for loss of companionship, mental distress and pain and suffering". So, sorry we killed your spouse in a mistake that was ours, but if you sue, we are covered.

If a survey were done to ask people if they knew who Aaron Rodgers or Ben Roethisberger or Joe Biden or John Boehner were, I'm guessing that Boehner finishes last, Biden next to last and you'd get a good conversation about the other two. This is not to say that the football games are not important. I will be hunkered down and watching both games on Sunday. But, I will also know about what our politicians are doing as well. Actually, they both are the best games in town.

Enjoy both.

This is too easy.

This is too easy.

Politicians are easy game anyway, but this is too easy. The Republicans on their first day of control of the US House of Representatives are tackling the major problems of the USA. One of their first orders of business is to read aloud the entire United States Constitution. That begs the question, "Haven't they ever read it before?" or "Don't they know what is in it?" Sure there are lots of new House members, but did they really get elected without knowing what is in the Constitution? Now at least one did not get elected once they expressed their lack of knowledge of the contents of the Constitution. The Tea Party/Republican candidate for senate in Delaware asked at a forum in front of law students about where in the Constitution that it indicated that there was separation of church and state. That question brought laughs from the audience. She fell far short of being elected.

So, the new leadership in the House of Representatives felt that this reading of the Constitution was the most important business item. This precedes their proposed agenda of creating jobs, reducing the size of the federal government, and reducing the deficit/national debt. Their second order of business is to vote on repealing the just passed health care law. This is going to be done, even though they know that passing this bill in the House of Representatives will go nowhere. The Senate would have to pass it as well and then the President would have to sign it. None of those things will happen. So, why is voting on a bill that has no chance of becoming law so important that it precedes their proposed agenda of creating jobs, reducing the size of the federal government, and reducing the deficit/national debt? Both of these more important agenda items are for one thing and one thing only--to symbolically score political points. They can then turn to their conservative base and say that they tried to undo the health care law and that they support the Constitution as written and read. It's a good thing that we have all the time in the world to fix the unemployment crisis, reduce the size of the federal government, and reduce spending to cut the deficit/national debt that we can engage in partisan grandstanding. But that is okay. These are the same folks that were in office when the national debt doubled under the Bush administration. Don't you remember new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, standing up to President Bush when the national debt increased during his administration? Boehner was in the House during those years when the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. Boehner voted for the tax rebate that President Bush pushed for in his first year in office that reduced the amount of money coming into the US Treasury and led to a deficit and greater national debt in Bush's first year in office. You don't remember Boehner and the Republicans doing that do you? That's because deficit spending and increasing the national debt are only bad when the other guys are in office. Boehner and the Republican majority and Republican President didn't worry about fiscal responsibility when they were the ones minding the money.

Picking on the Republicans for their first two agenda items is too easy. Comedians will use this as it is too easy to ridicule their first two actions on the House floor. They will score points with those that blindly applaud the Constitution reading as being what America is all about. This is not what America is all about. America is/should be about doing what is right for the American people and today that is getting down to the business of solving the unemployment problem first. Reading the Constitution will create no jobs.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is a often used phrase. The new wave of new government representatives should get on with it. Do. Quit with the posturing. Do! Make a difference in the lives of Americans. Do! This is only a new wave of changers of Washington's business as usual attitude if they act. Do! Their is a lot of talk about what the electors' message was on November 4th, 2010, I don't think it was all about jobs, or all about repealing health care laws, or about wars, or about immigration, or about .........fill in the blank. It was about Washington working. Do!

Now, everything will be all right!

Now everything will be all right.

Finally, the country, the state, nearly all governmental bodies will make everything okay again. The Republicans and their Tea Party mates are in control of state legislatures, the US House of Representatives, an increasing minority in the US Senate and they will fix everything. Hallelujah!!! What idiot voters put the Democrats in charge in the first place? Didn't they know that the Democrats were secret socialists, communists, anti-Americans? Fortunately the idiot voters that put them in control came to their senses and voted in real Americans. You know real Americans don't you? Those are the ones that uphold the Constitution of the United States. They support the first amendment and allow for freedom of religion. Of course, we can't allow all religions. That would enable "bad", "terrorist loving", "evil" religions into our freedom loving USA and we can't have that! Once that happens, "those" religions might want to build a religious building to hide their anti-American intentions. We can't have "those" people spreading their hate in our freedom loving country.

The real Americans love the second amendment too. After all, had real Americans not bought up all the ammunition in stores across the country after President Obama was sworn in, we'd have what we have now, the government taking away our guns and prohibiting our ammo purchases. Okay it hasn't started yet, but every real American knows that is what the Democrats are really after...eliminating all guns for citizens. By the way one state starting January 1, 2011 has a new law that allows the open carry of guns into bars, so long as the wearer doesn't appear drunk. Another win for the second amendment freedoms.

We certainly don't want to get like Mexico where it is hard to buy a gun. In fact, most of the murders in Mexico along the Mexican border with the USA are done by guns made in the USA and bought here in the USA. Thank goodness we still have the right to buy as many guns as we want and can sell them to whomever we want.

While I don't have time to list all the freedoms in the Constitution one by one, know that the new political might of Republicans/Tea Partyers, will fix everything. If only we could get many years of Republican rule, along with a Republican president, this country would be flying high on prosperity, full employment, great housing market, high stock market and this would once again be the land of milk and honey.

Oh, except for the period between 2001 and 2007 when the US did have a Republican president and Republican majorities in the both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Didn't spending decline? Weren't deficits eliminated? Wasn't there a booming stock market? Housing market? Full employment? Peace? Wasn't everyone happy?

Reality check.

While Republicans and Tea Partyers call for smaller government and less spending, what happened when the country was in Republican control? Spending increased. Yes, the spending was approved by both parties. War was declared on the attackers of 9/11. Yes, both parties approved going into Afghanistan. War was declared on a country that had not attacked the US. Yes, both parties approved going into Iraq. The stock market fell. The housing bubble was built up to the breaking point. Unemployment increased. Terror alerts abounded. In fact, the country was tired enough of the direction of the country that the Democrats were voted

(by idiot voters?) into majorities in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate in 2006 (taking office in January, 2007). By 2008 the course of the US train had seriously derailed. The housing bubble burst. The economy was in a shambles. Unemployment skyrocketed--really skyrocketed with 600,000 to 700,000 Americans losing their job EVERY MONTH!!!

Sometimes when people look at the short term, they lose sight of the long term. So, we heard, "Why hasn't Obama done more?" Why isn't unemployment back at pre-recession levels? Obama is turning American into a socialist/communist state. The government wants to dictate to us everything about our lives.

Let's see what the next two years bring. Will Republicans/Tea Partyers bring fiscal responsibility to Washington? Let's see. Will they bring about smaller government? Let's see. Will they rein in the deficits and lower the national debt? Let's see. Already some of these new members are talking about not increasing the maximum the USA can borrow, known as the debt ceiling (the national debt). Will capping our debt ceiling stop deficit spending which causes it? Or, should they just cut the spending they criticize and not need to raise the debt ceiling? Not raising the debt ceiling and then creating a crisis in the US's credit worthiness to other nations, will cause untold harm and chaos. In their effort to show they mean business about how Washington operate, will these new members be so foolish as to go to that showdown? Let's see.

Guts? Nerve? Daring? Fortitude? Backbone?

Sometimes you just have to take a stand and fight back.

Criticism has rained down on President Obama for giving the Republicans what they want. Obama has explained that compromise gives each side something they want and something that they have to give up that they don't want. This was the tax cut compromise. Obama said that he did not want to play politics with the lives of people that need help now, especially the 2,000,000 that are currently unemployed and need their unemployment benefits to exist. But Republicans were willing to play chicken and the President blinked first. Could a stand alone unemployment benefit bill have passed? Would Republicans vote no to such a bill? The answer to that is "yes". And then the political game would be on. Republicans could claim that the benefits were not paid for and that it perpetuated laziness and a welfare state. Democrats could claim that the Republicans were heartless and only seemed to worry about programs costs and how it would be paid for when it is not a program they favored. The tax cuts for the wealthy certainly aren't paid for. The tax cuts for the wealthy add billions of dollars to the deficit and consequently the national debt. Why don't those have to be paid for?

Obama said that not agreeing to the tax cut plan would raise taxes on the middle class. This would have a negative impact on the spending power of both the unemployed and the middle class and therefore a big impact on the economy and the recovery effort. But this would decrease the take home pay of working Americans only slightly and would raise billions of dollars from the wealthy as their tax cut would expire too. This would bring in billions to the US Treasury and therefore curtail the amount of the deficit and consequently the national debt.

What to do? What to do?

Many Democrats feel that Obama gave up too much. The wealthy gain big time with the tax cut for them. The middle class would pay higher taxes, but not to the point of making major changes to their life style. The biggest stumbling block is the unemployed. So was the deal for those 2,000,000? If you are one of them, you see that your lifeline is extended for a while and that is a great thing. So, what is the best thing for the US regardless of politics?

In the short term, the tax deal helps a lot of people and is a good thing. In the long run, maybe not. If US revenue increases, the deficit can be cut. Combine that with a supposed end to earmarks (supposed), and a major change in deficit spending could take place--a good thing. In reality the tax rates would just go back to what they were during the Clinton administration. You might remember those times. We weren't involved in any war, the unemployment rate was at record lows, and (gasp!) we actually ran a surplus instead of a deficit. IF Democrats could have found the nerve to stop the tax deal, could they have put the Republicans on the spot repeatedly by forcing votes that the Republicans said they would block without the tax cut for the wealthy? What would happen if every day a vote was defeated or blocked by Republicans on any issue that would be perceived as helpful to the US in the long run? Would the Republicans have the fortitude to continue and continue to block everything?

We won't know now, will we?

LET'S GO FORWARD BACKWARDS

Running on campaigns that promised job creation, at least two Republican governors elect have decided that the way to do that is to reject jobs that were created by Democrats. Both governors in Ohio and Wisconsin have rejected the high speed rail money that has already been awarded to their states. Let's examine Wisconsin's governor elect Scott Walker who campaigned on the promise that he would stop all progress on development of a high speed train between Milwaukee and Madison. This would eventually link up with existing train service between Milwaukee and Chicago and would also provide the basis for high speed trains continuing on to Minneapolis-St Paul. Sure enough, as he won election, he got outgoing Governor, Jim Doyle, to stop any additional work on the high speed train project. Governor Doyle not only supported the project, but had previously gotten a train manufacturer, Talgo Inc, to locate in Milwaukee and they had hired employees and were actively building train cars!

Walker originally wanted to divert the $810,000,000 that Wisconsin had been awarded to road building, but found out that this money was approved by Congress for high speed trains only. The US Transportation department indicated that if Wisconsin (and Ohio) did not want their share of this money, that it would be distributed to other states that did. And, other states immediately indicated that they wanted the money from these two states, totaling $1,200,000,000.

Walker said that the state would be on the hook for maintenance costs and he did not want to burden Wisconsin taxpayers with that extra cost, which he put at $7.5 million a year. That ignored the fact that the federal government currently picks up 90% of the maintenance costs on the existing service between Milwaukee and Chicago which would leave Wisconsin responsible for only $750,000. Now since it was reported that nearly 5,000 jobs would be created in building new tracks and upgrading existing tracks over several years and that there would be about 100+ permanent jobs running trains, stations, and other railroad duties, doesn't that mean that "I'll create jobs" Scott Walker is immediately losing jobs? Plus, some communities saw that a new train station and/or new train service in their towns would mean new development around that new traffic that would mean possibly new businesses locating near this new transportation, in the form of offices, restaurants, and shops. Then we have Talgo Inc. who just this morning announced that they would leave Wisconsin for a more train friendly state and take their 100-200 jobs with them. Illinois, which is planning to build a high speed train line between Chicago and St Louis, is interested in the company moving to their state. Wouldn't all these jobs have people paying taxes to Wisconsin? Isn't it possible that revenue would offset the $750,000 cost of maintenance for the state? Walker has said that he is going to create 250,000 new jobs in Wisconsin. Since he is starting at a minus 5000, he'll need to create 255,00 jobs to reach his goal. After going backwards, maybe we can start going forward. Hopefully Scott Walker knows the right direction.

"What the hell is going on out there!" -Lombardi

MAJOR CLARIFICATION

The big tax compromise.

Here is what happened, in clear terms. President Obama was faced with having tax rates for those making under $250,000 go up along with the rates for those making more (much more) as the tax cuts put in place temporarily by President Bush were due to expire December 31, 2010. At the same time, tax breaks put in by Obama for college tuition and small businesses were set to expire as well. At the same time unemployment benefits for about 2,000,000 unemployed Americans were set to end December 1st, 2010. Obama wanted to keep the tax cut for less than $250,000 earners and eliminate the tax cut for wealthy Americans (over $250,000). He wanted to extend unemployment benefits as for most those 2 million people that was the only income they had. That was what was keeping food on their table and a place to live. Republicans in the House and Senate insisted on keeping the tax cuts for everyone (meaning the rich, since everyone agreed to keep them for the middle class). The Republicans said that basically this was a must if anything was going to pass. Obama gave up 2 years of tax cuts for the wealthy to get the other things he wanted. That was the compromise. Many Obama supporters and many Democrats felt that Obama caved. This is not true. He got what he could under the circumstances. He could have fought with the Republicans and played chicken to see who would blink first, but that could take months and would mean the 2 million needing immediate help would not get it while the politicians played. He was not willing to do that. So, the rich get theirs (which is a lot) and Obama saved a lot of people who probably don't even know it and who probably voted Republican.

So what is the big deal about the wealthy getting a tax break?

One estimate is that with the tax cuts being extended to include wealthy folks, is that they will reap a $46,000 tax savings for each one million dollars of income. If you make $10, 000, 000, you can multiply that by 10 for about a half million dollars of extra money due to this tax break supplied by Republicans. Estimates also put this at a total of $60,000,000,000 that the US Treasury will not have coming in. These are the same Republicans that said that they could not in good conscious extend unemployment benefits since the Democrats did not figure out how to pay for that extension. They did not seem to worry about where the money would come from to pay for the tax cut for the wealthy.

What is the impact on the economy by these moves?

The people getting the unemployment benefits will spend that money immediately, putting that money into the economy immediately. The rich, it was pointed out by a Republican, will have the money to buy a nice, new car. (if they want a new one) or to invest in securities that could be eventually lent out to someone wanting to buy a house. The first of these grows the economy from the ground up. The second, seems to be along the lines of trickle down economics.

Why would the Republicans want to reward the rich? The Republican party blew away the records for bringing in donations for their candidates. The largest amount came in the form of unidentified contributors to third party organizations that sprang up overnight and did not have to follow any reporting rules as to who gave or how much they gave to these groups. You saw these groups this past election season pushing attack ads. They got life as the Supreme Court ruled this past summer that campaign finance laws set up to regulate these groups were illegal.

The best government money can buy.

November 2, 2010, did you vote today?

Today is the federal election day, November 2, 2010, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Did you vote? Are you still going out to vote? Are you just going to let everyone else decide? No one ever impacted an election by sitting it out. Can't choose between the candidates? Go to someone you trust and ask them who to vote for. Read the endorsements of your local newspaper. Read about the candidates on-line. "I don't like either of the candidates. One is an idiot and the other is a moron." Okay. But either the idiot or the moron is going to be elected anyway. Choose whomever you think will do the least harm. Sitting out allows other idiots and morons to decide the future for you. "Government doesn't really affect me anyway." What a way to hide. Of course government at all its different levels affects everyone. "Nothing ever changes, just different crooks in charge." That is the fault of all of us and of citizens who don't take part at all.

This election is not going to please at least half of the voters and nearly all of the non-voters. If you are a non-voter and have a complaint, just shut up. If you are a voter and have a complaint, file it. Get it on record with your elected officials, write a letter to the newspaper, post comments online, work for the candidates you want to see have a shot at running things even more next time.

VOTE TODAY!!!

Thanks.

A sign of the times--no party

A SIGN OF THE TIMES, NO REPUBLICANS, NO DEMOCRATS, JUST CANDIDATES

Have you noticed? I can't find a political sign for any elected office that uses the words "Democrat" or "Republican". It is as if the political parties ceased to exist. Everyone is running on their own name only with no party affiliation. You use to see that "Vote for John Q. Public, Democrat" or "Joe Blow, Republican for Congress". Have you seen any party listed on anyone's yard sign? Political flyer or literature? TV ad? Nope. I've see "...a true conservative.", but no political party. It is not only not fashionable this year, it can be toxic. Some party will come out of these off year elections with a majority in Congress, they just won't ask you to vote for that party.

Voting is underway in many states that have early voting. Make your plans to vote, either on election day November 2nd or early, according to your state's laws. DO NOT cop out by saying "my vote doesn't count." or "I don't care for either candidate." or "I don't know about politics." or "I'm too busy." OR....... you get the idea. If only, once a person started voting they would have to continue or would want to continue. Where will all the voters that voted in 2008 be this year? "I voted for change and nothing has changed." "I voted for McCain and my candidate never wins." Get off your sorry rear ends and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Don't know who to vote for? Ask someone smart, someone you trust, someone who knows what is going on and take their recommendation. DO NOT throw your right to vote away!

Women fought for decades to get the right to vote. How many won't today?

Minorities fought, in many cases with their lives for the right to vote. How many won't today?

18-20 year olds finally go the right to vote during the Viet Nam war. How many won't today?

In many countries, people risk their lives to even show up at a voting location. We only have to go to a voting location near our homes. How many won't today?

GET OUT AND VOTE!!

"Don't vote! We'll be fine without" --Bob Roberts

If you've never seen the film "Bob Roberts" starring Tim Robbins, you won't recall this song that was part of the movie. It is a movie worth renting. Robbins plays a folk singing, senatorial candidate. One of the songs is "Don't vote" with the lyric--"We'll be fine without you" That is exactly what many politicians are hoping for this November 2nd. DON'T VOTE!! You see, the smaller the electorate (voters) the more likely that the fringe candidates and less popular candidates can win. Wait! If they are less popular, won't they lose? No. Follow this scenario: 100 CAN vote. If they had to vote and all 100 voted, candidate A would get 48, candidate B would get 44, 8 votes would go to the wide variety of fringe candidates that are on the ballot. (there are many) But all 100 who CAN vote, don't. The turnout is around 50%, so only 50 vote. But, candidate A's backers are unenthused, are apathetic, are too busy and in reality only 22 actually get out and vote for their candidate. Candidate B's supporters are enthused, active, and can't wait to vote.30 of them get out and vote. The remaining 8% also vote to some extent or another. B wins!! A's supporters who didn't vote wonder what happened. They weren't all that excited about the job A was doing and really were busy on election day and had to get their car in for servicing. Candidate B did a good job of reminding A's supporters that A hadn't kept all their promises and that everyone was disappointed in what was happening now. This message resonates. Even though A had done a pretty good job since being elected originally, A's backers felt let down and discouraged and apathetic. Why support A again? A hadn't done everything that they promised to get elected. Things are better but not perfect. I give up. I tried to help change things and nothing(?) changed. Why vote again?

After election day, B is the winner and the realization that oops, maybe they won't be such a good leader hits. The improvement of A will start to be reversed by B and his backers.

Who wants to have a large voter turnout? The answer should be everyone, but it is not. In some states several billboards have gone up stating that voter fraud is a crime and could result in jail. This is accompanied with a picture of someone looking regretful behind bars. Whenever voter fraud is investigated, it is found to be next to nothing. We should all work to prevent voter fraud, but these billboards have an intimidating effect that mostly affects poor and undereducated. Some voters in lower income neighborhoods have received postcards telling them that they are not eligible to vote. Who could possibly want to intimidate voters into possibly not voting?

If the news media decides to follow up and report on that, you can decide that question.

But this has nothing to do with me. I'm intelligent, not poor, and I am eligible to vote. Being eligible to vote and doing so are two far, far different things. Will you vote? Pick out your favorite candidate, or party, or position and go and vote. Can't get there on Nov. 2nd? Vote absentee ballot. Go to your city hall and vote now. Write and get an absentee ballot by mail. You still have time if you act now! You will be sent an absentee ballot by mail, fill it out, and mail it back. Away at college? Do this or you have the option in many states of being listed as a resident of the area you are in and can vote in the city of your college. Some states have no advance voter registration, like Wisconsin, and you can sign up the day of the election. Just bring ID and address verification, like a drivers license or utility bill of your current address.

DO SOMETHING!!!! GO VOTE!!!!

or

They'll be fine without you.

Rally for sanity??!! Keep fear alive??!! I'll be there!! How about you?

If you missed it, there are competing rallies being held in Washington DC on October 30th. One is the Rally For Sanity being promoted by Jon Stewart on his comedy channel show, The Daily Show. It has also been spoken of on news shows on CNN and Fox News(?) and he had an appearance on Oprah (wow) talking about the rally. Stephen Colbert is sponsoring the Keep Fear Alive rally on the same date at the same place. Some people think that this is just a spoof (how often do you get to use the word "spoof"?), but these are actual rallies.

Now, some people are thinking "so what?", a couple of comedians are trying to promote themselves and their television shows. But, there is an interesting take on this that makes sense. Jon Stewart for all his wit and comedic talent makes a valid point saying that there are 15-20% of the people being heard because they shout the loudest, say the craziest things, get the media's attention and show up in our living rooms on the news, even if their pronouncements are a bit insane. There is another 80-85% of the public that is sane, but don't do the things to get on the news. They are the people that are trying to get by in a bad economy, provide for their families and themselves, don't really have time for politics, and fighting back against the crazies, and just exist while the chaos as portrayed on the news is portrayed as "most" Americans. And,mostly, they don't have a vehicle for displaying their saneness. This rally is that vehicle. Get on board. If you are tired of the wackos in the front of the news getting all the attention, if you feel that the news media has not displayed your set of opinions, if you dislike the negative, sometimes racist, sometimes xenophobic, sometimes homophobic, sometimes anti-freedom of religion, all the time shouting of the dissident conservative right, your chance to, not shout back, but to protest politely back, is this rally. Let me encourage, no, strongly urge that you make it to this event. This is that important.

Stewart kiddingly said that you should think about this as Woodstock, but without the nudity and drugs and instead rational discourse. This could be the event of your lifetime or your generation. You want to be there. It will be a happening, or just a mild get-together amongst polite, well meaning people that are wondering why in the hell they came. I think it will be an event not to be missed.

I will be there.

At first, I thought what a silly thing to do. Then, upon further review, I thought, I don't like the news media portraying all Americans as angry with all politicians, with being upset with all taxes, as conservatives, and far right conservatives, who speak for all Americans. THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!!. That being said, who does speak for me? Well, me. I want to lend my support for saneness, for rationalness (possible new word), for not turning this country into one that decides what is to happen by mob rule. Yes, these people may not be a mob and they will turn out and vote, as will I. They may be more impassioned and will vote no matter what, and relatively sane folks may not be that invested in the upcoming election, but they should. The loud minority only wins where the larger, dare I say it, "silent majority" stays silent. Because after this rally, there is an election and if you can't get to the rally, you must get to the polls. You must vote! You must help defeat extremism in political thought. What is extremism? Listen. It is out there. Smaller government. Really? How? How would smaller government handle the oil spill? Leave it to the states? The first thing Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal said following the oil spill and for days afterwards was "Where is the federal government?" Obama isn't doing enough. Would smaller government stop the egg contamination problem? Or was it lack of government that brought about the wide-spread problem with half a billion eggs recalled. Extremism? Lower taxes! At a time when Republicans are screaming about a run-away deficit, we should bring in less money and increase the deficit and the national debt even more? Get government out of my life? Repeal the new health care law? Didn't you know about Obama being born in Kenya? Didn't you know that Obama is a Muslim? Didn't you see the change towards socialism? Don't you see............?

WHOA!

Are we that short-sighted as an electorate? Are we that unknowledgeable (another new word) about what is going on? One in five Americans in a poll believe that Obama is a Muslim. (truth alert--he isn't. He is a Christian) How can 20% of Americans believe something that is totally untrue? It happens all the time and people believe what they want to believe even the untruth. (new word?)

Want an example? The USA went into Iraq because of their involvement in the attack on the USA on 9/11. (circa 2003, pre-invasion of Iraq, 69% of Americans in a poll said the attack was justified because of that) Truth? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein had no connection with Osama Bin Laden. Iraq had no WMD's. That takes care of all the initial reasons for invading Iraq. We are now at 4,424 US deaths in Iraq. What do you believe today?

The Mad Hatter had a Tea Party too!

The primary in Wisconsin is over and done. Did you vote? If not, I got to select the candidates that will be available in the general election, November 2nd. I know you will like who I selected, since you left the decision up to me. Thanks.

The big news around the country is the success of the Tea Party. For the uninformed, the Tea Party isn't exactly a new political party, but an offshoot of the Republican party that is even more extreme and conservative that Republicans. (I'll get back to extreme) In fact the regular Republicans have run extensively against Tea Party types and put lots of money up to their candidates to defeat the Tea Party candidates believing that their less conservative, less extreme (later) candidate will have a better chance of defeating the Democrat in November. But the Tea Party has rabid supporters that actually turn out and vote. (What a concept) No better case can be seen than in Delaware. The Republican party supported a long time politician for the US Senate race against a Tea Party backed candidate running for the 1st time who was backed by Sarah Palin. This election was for the Republican nomination to run against a Democrat in November for the seat vacated by Joe Biden. The Tea Party won. The Republican party leaders said initially that they would not endorse the TP winner and would not give money to her campaign. WOW! Less than 24 hours later, the Republicans said they would work for her and would give her money. I guess they felt a TPer was better than a Democrat in holding that seat and the TPer would never vote with the Democrats, so she would be a solid Republican vote. Who cares about her beliefs? The Republicans want a Republican vote no matter what the moral issues, or political issues, and certainly please never mind their flip-flop on their support for her.

Extreme?
Understand there is not a national platform of beliefs that govern all Tea Party members. As a result, they have a wide range of beliefs. This candidate from Delaware believes in abstinence only education. She has in the past labeled masturbation as lustful and therefore sinful. Other TPers have talked about stopping the "Gay agenda". I don't think I've seen a copy of that agenda. TPers most usually talk about cutting taxes and less government. Really? Less government means less regulation of businesses, less services provided by the government, which might include less money for social programs like social security and medicare/medicaid. This usually means cutting taxes, especially for those that have the money. Hmmm. Tax cuts for the wealthy? Good thing that isn't a hot topic right now. Oh, wait. It is. Look at TP crowds. Glen Beck drew several thousands to Washington DC. It turned out to be more about the USA finding its way back to God through lower taxes, less government and "taking our country back". (I'm not sure where our country has been that it needs to come back). The crowd was nearly all white. People interviewed all talked about their taxes. Maybe the Tea Party should have a slogan that represents them--"poor folks need not apply."
What is extreme? What is far off from the mainstream citizenry? TPers have held signs that say "Taxation without representation". Our government is based on representative government. Their problem is that they think they are not represented by those elected. To their credit, they are doing something about it....getting their candidates on the ballot and in some cases, winning.
Democrats are cheering on TPers as they think this will divide the Republican party. Be careful what you wish for. TPers have shown they will turn out in numbers on election day. The Republicans, once they have lost primary nominations, will support the TPer as opposed to sitting out the election or voting for a Democrat. Democrats are in trouble this November, according to most political experts, and thinking that the American voter is smart enough to get past the sloganeering that catches the eye and ear of the mindless is folly (a great word not used enough).
Democrats are in trouble. Some are disenchanted with Obama claiming he hasn't done enough and the economy keeps dragging down the news of improvement. The Republicans are poised for a big win. A win that could put them back in charge of the House and the Senate. TPers that may have been disillusioned by the Republicans, are charged up. Democrats seem to be charged down.
It is not too important. The future of the USA is at stake. Where will you be November 2?
"

LIARS, LIARS, AND DAMN LIARS!

"I am going to CUT your taxes!" As soon as you hear a politician, any politician say that, first, think "They are a dirty, stinking, rotten liar!" (DSRL's) This is the season where many politicians running for a wide variety of offices are saying that and each one is DSRL. No matter what party or office (excepting US President) they are a DSRL. Why can't politicians cut your taxes? Because of what taxes are used for, things you want!
This was an exercise I used in my classes. Students listed all the things that government (any) does FOR you. The list filled the board--providing roads, education, police protection, fire departments, snow plowing, libraries, museums, clean water, garbage pick-up, sewerage, courts, a system of laws, prisons, military protection, and on and on. Then, the questions, first, "Which of these things do you want done away with?" and a consensus had to be reached to eliminate anything. So, some wanted museums or libraries scrapped as they did not use them, and just as quickly, others protested that they did use them and wanted them kept. Eventually we decided that we (collectively) WANTED these things to be kept. Then, the next question, "How do we pay for these services?" Easy answer--taxes. Then the big conclusion, if these are good things that we want and taxes pay for them, then by the old mathematical reasoning, if A = B, and B = C, then mustn't A = C?, we can conclude that if services are good and services are paid by taxes, then taxes are good!
WAIT! I've always heard that taxes are bad, especially high taxes. Which of the services that government provides do you want to take care of yourself? Sewerage? Garbage? Fire protection? I've never had to use the fire department, but I am more than willing to pay taxes to have them there if I ever do need them. I'm glad that the government has a system of laws and courts and prisons. I like clean water and safe foods and traffic laws and police and ....... These are not free. Our taxes pay for everything that government provides to us and they provide a lot.

Now Mr./Ms Politician comes along to promise lower taxes. Your question back to them should be "What are you going to cut from the services I receive to lower taxes?" Usually you will get a response that indicates that they will get rid of wasteful programs. Which ones? They will eliminate waste in government. Good, no one is in favor of waste. But, your waste may be my favorite service. Is there significant waste ending to significantly reduce your taxes or does your tax money make your community, state, nation the type of place you want to live?

Many communities have boulevards or gardens or park areas where landscaping and flower planting takes place. Your tax dollars pay the parks department to do that. Is that a waste? Would you be happy if your local government decide to end that and pave over those areas so as not to have to cut grass or care for those areas at all? I choose to live where that flower planting is done. It was beautiful this summer. Spend my tax dollars on some of that. I like it.

Taxes are good.

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AROUND HERE?

I've decided to start this over. A do-over if you will. Today is September 6, 2010. In Wisconsin there is a primary election on September 14. We will be selecting (not electing) candidates for the main election on November 2 for both the Republican and the Democratic parties. If you are in another state (of mind), your state may also be having a primary election or already had one (you snooze, you lose). Most people, the primaries usually only attract less than half the voters, don't bother with this election as it doesn't elect anyone. Then, when the main election comes around, they wonder what happened to their favorite candidate. They sit around and wonder what the big deal is when their candidate that actually makes it is criticized for not garnering more votes.
DON'T MISS THIS ELECTION!! If you don't know what is going on, find out! It isn't that hard especially with the Internet. Read a newspaper! Or, if you are totally uninformed, totally uninterested, totally naive, totally spacey, ask a real person for their recommendations! You have a week to do so.
The dissatisfied, semi-involved, semi-knowledgeable, people, who you don't want making decisions for you, will be out in force. People you don't want making decisions for you, will. Don't miss this or any election. (you will regret it)