Congressional Term Limits

    Congress now has an all time low rating in the minds of the American public. This seems inconsistent, because it is the American public which elects the Congress. However, it is the explainable when one considers that the election process involves a majority opinion of citizens. Many of the citizens are not knowledgeable of issues and vote on the basis of name recognition. Later, they recognize that the actions of the people they voted for have been inconsistent with their desires, which is then registered as a low Congressional rating.
    When a Congressperson spends the majority of his time and effort on developing name recognition for reelection, the country suffers because of Congressional inaction in accomplishing programs which are of benefit to the development of the country as a whole. In other words, Congresspersons relegate themselves to political hacks rather than statesmen.
    Related to the election process is also the matter of earmarks or pork for constituents. The local public generally sends its Congresspersons to Washington to obtain for it some government benefits. This is a natural consequence of human nature and all talk of eliminating earmarks or pork in general is really not appropriate. Pork is a strong basis on which a Congressperson arrives in Washington and stays there. However, pork is not a single entity to a single Congressperson. Pork is distributed among Congresspersons based on negotiation. It is the president's responsibility to see that the total pork bill is within reasonable limits of the federal budget.
    Considering the negative influences of Congresspersons' concentrations to retaining their jobs indefinitely and excessive total pork, some obvious changes would be desirable.
    The first change should be to modify the Congressperson's attitude toward more statesmanlike activities for the country rather than concentrate on reelection. This would involve term limits, which have been previously suggested, but never making any progress, because it is equivalent to asking the fox to deny himself entrance to the chicken house. However, it could be done by a group of citizens introducing the subject as part of the reelection process. For example, a question to be asked to a Congressperson running for reelection would be whether he would vote for term limits. If he replied negatively, he would not obtain the support of the group for reelection. Additionally, there are some older Congresspersons, who would like to retire with some legacy toward statesmanship and would independently support term limits. Perhaps these could lead the charge.

Penalties for Administrative People

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I like your amendment to the recent Senate budget bill, wherein you withhold the pay of the Director of The Office of Management and Budget and other related budget preparation persons, when they are late in submitting the required budget.
    This is particularly interesting, because it's a first step by Congress to hold various people of the Administration responsible for properly doing their jobs. This is particularly true of the various Federal agencies. For each of these agencies, I believe there is an equivalent Senate overseeing committee. The Senate committees need to take more forceful actions with these various agencies to follow the laws previously established by Congress and approved by the President. We see too many cases where persons take inappropriate actions, inconsistent with the original law or regulation. These people do damage and need to be restrained. I believe that should be the responsibility of the Congressional oversight committees.

Federal Budget

Open email to Representative Randy Neugebauer (TX):

Randy,
    I read your latest newsletter and watched your remarks on the House floor concerning a balanced federal budget.
    The plan is to balance the budget in 10 years. That means we will continue to be out of balance, or in effect, spending more money than we have for the next nine years. I will grant that a federal government budget has some unusual aspects compared to a personal budget, but they are not completely different. They involve pluses and minuses or income and expenses.    If I were to spend more than I take in for nine straight years, I would be bankrupt and on the government dole. On a more basic aspect closer to nature, if I were to eat less for nine straight years than I need to stay alive, I would be dead.    I will grant that it took us a long time to get into this deficit situation, presumably because we didn't watch what we were doing, but that doesn't mean that it would similarly take a long time for us to correct the errors.
    I don't want Ryan's budget, which increases government spending 3% each year. That's out of balance, because we are increasing spending by that amount, when we already know we have a deficit income. A ridiculous proposal! Go to the chopping block! There will be pain, but any time there has been access, the result will be pain. Example, overeating causes obesity with subsequent probability of an early death. The solution is to go on a diet, but it is painful. Taking cocaine can presumably give a feeling of joy and exhilaration, but it is said that the withdrawal pain is horrendous.
    Is there a choice on the budget? No! We are on the road to devastation. Let's move to the pain, with the expectation that we can get back to life.

    In a second part of your newsletter, you said that you are moving to assure that taxpayer dollars are not used in abortion programs in public schools. On the surface, this sounds good, but go back to what I said previously about the budget. It's silly to talk about taxpayer funded abortions in public schools, when we should not be sending any taxpayer dollars to public schools. Public schools should be funded by local citizens or eliminated with the establishment of private schools. The federal government has no business in education. That should be part of the new budget.

Sen. Cornyn's (TX) Newsletter

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I read your latest newsletter. You are exactly on target with the three points considered.
    They were:
        1. Voted against assault weapon ban. We cannot further infringe Second Amendment gun rights. In fact, state and local laws currently infringing rights should be repealed, including Texas.        2. Cosponsored Sen. Cruz's bill to defund Obamacare.        3. Promoting more government transparency.    Thank you for these actions. They are a service to Texans and US citizens in general.

Public Access to Government Research

    In the February 25 issue of C&E News, Britt Erickson reports on combined House and Senate actions to make the results of taxpayer funded government research freely available to the public. Congratulations to Reps. Doyle (PA), Lofgren (CA), and Yoder (KS), and to Senators Wyden (OR) and Cornyn (TX)!
    Since taxpayers are paying for the research, it seems fair that they should have an opportunity to review and use the results, if any. I suspect that this information release will have no significant effect on eventual public use, because of the general unproductiveness of government research. In other words, this will really be an exercise in futility, because it is unlikely that there is anything there of real value.
    However, the main reason I support the program is that what it will show the impracticality of government research, and perhaps convince Congress to be significantly cutting back on such expenditures, as they should have done a long time ago. The article says that publishes are calling it "unnecessary and a waste of federal resources". That statement apparently comes from the fact that such public release will negatively influence the bottom line profit of publishers. No mention is made, but it is also likely that government agencies and University recipients of government grants will likewise oppose this position, because it will shed light on the ineffectiveness of the present agency research programs.

Government Science Research

    Andrea Widener reports in the March 4 issue of C&E News that a caucus of four House Representatives are promoting government research. They are Hultgren (IL), Patta (PA), Lujan (NM), and Nunnelee (MS). While the caucus has not yet set an agenda, one of its first efforts will be to promote increased Federal government science funding. Members of the caucus are said to be big believers in the importance of science, as am I. Hultgren says backing basic science and research is one of the roles of government.
    I also believe that backing basic science and research is one of the roles of government, but the question is what does "backing" mean?. It is clear that the caucus's intention is to throw more taxpayer money at research programs, which are already in considerable excess at the various government agencies, including the National Science Foundation.
    This sort of caucus within the House is a dangerous operation. In these times of budget deficits and extreme national debt, is our objective to be cutting government expense rather than increasing it. The caucus is obviously planning the reverse. In other words, we have gotten into this financial government mess through many years of excessive spending as approved by Congress, and this caucus only exacerbates a continuation of the same program.
    I have yet to see any significant positive results from previous government research programs, as they spent billions of dollars of taxpayer money. It is past time to call it quits. Basic research should be done at universities and private companies or corporations, and not by government. Any "backing" by government should be in the form of encouragement, without funding. The maximum I will go is to agree that research by taxpaying organizations should receive a deduction in their federal tax calculation.
    I do not support the caucus program. I believe it is detrimental to the financial health of the US, and I further believe that we should cut basic present agency research to the bone, except for national defense. 

Representative Neugebauer's (TX) Newsletter

Randy,
    I read your latest newsletter.

Federal Government Funding for 2013    You voted for a Continuing Resolution to fund the Federal government for the remainder of 2013. You did so because the continued resolution contains real spending cuts. As I understand it, it also replaces the Sequester. The Sequester also has real spending cuts. How do the cuts on the Continuing Resolution compare with those of the Sequester? When we talk money, numbers are very important, and I don't think that point should have been neglected.
    A Continuing Resolution by the House is meaningless without agreement of the Senate and the President. You make no comment on the probability of obtaining such agreement, which seems to me also as another key point.

Federal Budget    You also say that Congress will be working on a new budget. You imply that preparation of such a budget is the key issue, with further implication that it's passage is a foregone conclusion. Obviously, nothing is further from the truth. In the last few days, Ryan has proposed a Republican budget, and the Democrats have today proposed a Democratic budget.
    The Ryan budget includes a repeal of Obamacare. There is no way that the President will ever approve such a bill, and with a strong Democratic Senate, there seems no way to override a Presidential veto with a two thirds majority. In effect, the Ryan budget appears futile.
    As I understand it, the Democratic budget does not include repeal of Obamacare and includes many so-called "investment" expenses, or in effect, continues to travel on the same course of budget deficit and accumulation of national debt.
    The House controls the Federal government purse strings. If the House does not approve, the Democratic budget will have no chance. Hopefully, the Republicans will be strong enough to resist its passage, even to the extent of shutting down the Federal government. In case you were worried about this, the Italian Federal government has been shut down several times and the country of Italy still exists. A US Federal government shutdown would not be as catastrophic as is generally implied.

Fuel Efficiency    Congratulations on your bill to allow farmers to increase the amount of fuel they can transport. This is a relatively small but yet very important aspect of eliminating unnecessary restrictive rules on any business. Please keep up the good work.

UN Arms Treaty    Congratulations also on your opposition to the United Nations Arms Treaty, which by international law would then make it illegal for US citizens to bear arms. This would be contrary to our Constitution and should be fought with all fervor, even to the extent of withdrawing from the United Nations if necessary..

Alamo and States Writes

    Open email to Sen. Cornyn of Texas:

Dear Sen.,
    I read your newsletter about the Alamo. It is interesting to remember the history of the great state of Texas.
    As I recall, Texans bore the primary burden of the war against Mexico to establish Texan freedoms. Texas subsequently volunteered to join the United States under the then existing terms of the U.S. Constitution.
    Since that time, the US government has continued to wrest power from all the states, including Texas, contrary to terms of the Constitution.
    Do you plan to do anything to return Constitutional rights Texas, or are you satisfied with the status quo?

Secretary of State - Global Warming

   In a recent speech, new Secretary of State Kerry gave strong emphasis to a need for controlling global warming. I don't believe he specified how he intends to do this, but the party line has been to control carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
    I would like to know from Secretary Kerry what justification he has to relate carbon dioxide to global warming. If we have global warming, and there is some conjecture about that, what does carbon dioxide emissions have to do with it? Granted, carbon dioxide emissions are up. So is inflation, the national debt, Chicago murders, etc. Are any of these responsible for global warming?

Endangered Species

Open email to House Representative Neugebauer of Texas:
Randy,
I read your latest newsletter.
If the Lesser Prairie-Chicken is even being considered as an endangered species, let's stop the talk and go into action. Solicit some minor funding from environmental groups or, if absolutely necessary, use public funds to capture several and put them into an animal/bird reservation on federal land, of which you are ready have plenty. Any talk about depriving individuals of their personal land rights because of an endangered species is absolutely ridiculous. If the law is now established, such as individuals are required to give up their land for endangered species, change it.
Congratulations for receiving the Defender of Economic Freedom Award from the Club for Growth. Keep up the good work, so that you receive it again next year.
I look forward to hearing what you say in testifying before the House Budget Committee. Hopefully, it will be something specific such as reducing the size of the federal government, reestablishing states rights, reducing federal taxes and reducing federal regulations on business.
Art
Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net

Syria Humanitarian?

   It has recently been revealed that the US will send $60 million of foreign aid to Syrian rebels. The question is why? Is it to help oust Pres. Assad? The political answer is "no". The Obama Administration said it is for humanitarian purposes, but I suspect that is a deception to avoid objections to any obvious grant of military aid to the rebels. The likelihood is that we will not ship food and clothing. It is easier to ship money. How that money is spent is anybody's guess, and the chances are that it will be spent on military equipment to defeat Pres. Assad's army.
    Why does Pres. Obama want to oust Pres. Assad? That's anybody's guess, but it probably fits in with our previous money grants to Arab countries, especially Egypt and Libya.
    Pres. Mubarak ran Egypt nicely for many years, with US support of an average $2 billion per year since 1979. For that sum, the US bought military access to the Suez Canal and an acceptance of Israel as a US ally. Too much to pay? Probably, but $2 billion didn't sound like much to the President or Congress, and they paid it. Suddenly, Pres. Obama decided he didn't like Pres. Mubarak anymore and used the $2 billion per year payments as a wedge to obtain Mubarak's ouster. We now have Pres. Morsi, who is part of the Muslim Brotherhood and openly antagonistic to the US, in spite of continuing to receive US grants. He is also especially antagonistic to our ally Israel.
    In Libya, Pres. Gaddafi was in charge. Agreeably, he was a bad actor. He was responsible for the killing of many US citizens, particularly in an airplane crash. He probably deserved ousting, but that is conjectural, because it appears that in his last years he seemed to be more cooperative. In any event, Pres. Obama and Congress spent an estimated $900 million to oust him and replace him with who knows what. Whoever seems to be in charge of the Libyan government appears to be no friend of the US. Several months ago we lost an ambassador and a few other Americans in an assassination. The Libyan government, if there is one, has been no help in placing responsibility for this act of injustice.
    With the poor record of Pres. Obama and Congress spending a substantial amount of money to change the complexion of Middle East politics, why is it that we appear to continue down this ridiculous path?
    I don't like or dislike Pres. Assad of Syria. I know that he ran the country quite well for a number of years and its citizens did not appear to be especially impoverished. Rebels now want control, and the US appears to give support. As we do so, will we be traveling down the path of Egypt and Libya to our own disadvantage?
    The guise of current humanitarian support appears to be based on news reports that Assad is killing his own people. The implication is that "his own people" are innocent civilians and children. That's ridiculous! No leader in his right mind wants to kill the people that he leads. As Assad kills people in Syria, you can be sure that, other than collateral damage, his intention is to wipe out the rebels and retain power.
    Humanitarianism is another word for compassion, which is an emotion of individuals. Some acts or reports generate compassion in some individuals and not in others. In government, there is no room for compassion. Compassion is reserved for individuals and their abilities to act on the bases of the degree of compassion they feel and their capabilities. If individual Americans want to send humanitarian help to the people of Syria, that should be their choice, not the function of the US government.
    How does this add up? The Obama Administration and Congress have a poor record in reorganizing Middle East governments. They should stop spending taxpayer money on such programs. Additionally, the US government should not be in the compassion business and should stop spending money on that, whether actual or a guise for military assistance.

Science and Technology Research

    When most people think about science and technology, they think about the development of the airplane, the telephone, and more recently the digital camera and the smart phone. When they think about science and technology research, they think about the Wright brothers, Alexander Graham Bell, or Apple. Seldom do they think about government research, which is a multibillion dollar industry.
    When a private company or public corporation engages in research, it does so with the sole intention of developing new products for sale at a profit.
    When government engages in research, it does so with the intention of supporting an ideology or an increase in power through the spending of money.
    The difference is that with private companies and public corporations, the Board of Directors and stockholders are interested in profit. If the CEO tries to use research for the promotion of an ideology, it will not be tolerated either by the Board or the stockholders. Conversely, government has no accountability concerning its research expenditures on practical projects or ideology, because a naïve public normally does not consider the difference or else assumes that is not important to them because other people are paying for it.
    I have been for some time bemoaning the fact of government waste through its research program, which essentially involves grants to universities for projects attempting to obtain scientific support for ideological positions. Grants involving carbon dioxide and climate change are typical are the most egregious. I say that because the grant support program always starts with a supposition that carbon dioxide emissions control climate. There is never a grant attempting to prove that the two are related.
    However, with the introduction of the sequester, there is good news. Not that the grant program is being changed to one of greater practicality, but rather that is being significantly reduced and thereby reducing expenditures on ideological support, which have no basis for improving the lifestyle of the public.
    The following are details of the progress we are starting to make:
    The National Institute of Health (NIH) will eliminate hundreds of grants. It is said that several thousand research positions could be eliminated, although it is hard for me to understand why elimination of grant to a professor would be so compounded. If one grant supports 10 people, it is obviously excessive.
    At the National Science Foundation (NSF) research grants will be reduced by 1000. This is said to have supported 12,000 employees. Again, obviously excessive.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will cut an unspecified number of grants.
    The Department of Energy (DOE) will also have an unspecified number of cuts, some of which will negatively affect clean energy development, which in my judgment is a loser because it is ahead of its time and should be cut.
    The DOE has a separate Office of Science and 10 national laboratories. Sec. Chu says 25,000 researchers could be negatively affected by the cuts. I say "great". In fact, I have been advocating for some time the elimination of the Department of Energy, which existence has not only been a waste of money but a detriment to the development of our economy. Sec. Chu recently announced his resignation, but that should be followed by elimination of the agency as a whole.
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not mention cuts in grants. Rather, it claims that it will have to cut development of more efficient procedures to evaluate chemical hazards, including endocrine disruptors. This work is obviously advantageous to society and needs to be continued, at least in part. However, the necessary research should be conducted within government laboratories and not through grants to universities, who basically have no background in such work. Alternatively, a lot of the responsibility for safety of new or existing chemical products can be passed to the suppliers, with the EPA only acting as controller for approval or disapproval of a product for public use.
    In summary, the sequestration is bringing us some good results in eliminating programs, which should have never been instituted the first place. But, still more can be done. There has been excessive growth, but there can also be excessive cuts. The key to determining what is necessary is a consideration of what is practical and what is ideological.