Understanding Insurance and Social Security

    Insurance basically involves money. It is a tool to reduce risk. For example, there is always a possibility that your house will burn down. If you have no insurance, you may also not have sufficient other assets to rebuild. With insurance coverage, the insurance payments will help you rebuild.
    There are several categories of insurance; casualty (damage to personal property such as houses or cars), life insurance (payments to beneficiaries on the insured's death), business continuity insurance (covering loss of business income from some accident or other catastrophe), liability (covers payments to individuals for perceived damage caused by the insured), health (covers hospital costs, physician charges, medication etc.), and retirement or pension (allows a continuity of income after retirement or other severance from a paying job).
    For each category a monthly fee, known as a premium, is charged to the insured individual or group. The amount of the premium is determined by an actuary working for the insurance company. For each thousand dollars of risk that the insurance company will assume from the insured, he calculates the dollar amount of the premium which will cover the likelihood of risk that the company will have to make a payment and still include a profit for the company. Premiums from all insured persons or groups go into a pool from which payments are made by the insurance company. Those persons or groups, who have cumulatively paid little in premiums and have a subsequent payment from the company, will gain from the exchange. Those persons or groups, who have paid premiums for many years and have never claimed an insurance company payment, will have a loss from the exchange. However, the latter group will have reduced its risk of financial loss during that long period, in which insurance coverage was in force.
    With that background, I would like to continue only with the matter of retirement insurance or pensions.
    It has been determined by nature that human beings are most productive in their middle years. Therefore, society has established a system by which private enterprise and government do not involve employment with subsequent payment of wages or salaries to children or very old people. In the case of children, routine care is usually given by parents. In the case of very old people, routine care is many times given by grown middle-aged children, but there is a large proportion of old people who do not have that benefit. Therefore, a pension system was designed by companies such that retirees would continue to be paid a monthly subsistence amount after the employee reached a retirement age, generally 65 years. That is often called retirement, pension insurance, or  an annuity.
    Most companies use a retirement/pension program as an incentive to attract potential employees, who the companies perceive would be of value to their organizations. However, many of those companies are not sufficiently large to properly handle their own insurance pool, and contract the service to existing insurance companies. For each employee, the employer then pays to the insurance company a monthly premium. Usually this is not charged to the employee but is borne by the company as part of the employment benefit package. Those employees who reach the retirement age of 65 and are no longer receiving wages or salary from their employer, then receive monthly subsistence payments from the insurance company until they die. That practice is still in existence. Small business owners generally set up their own retirement program with an insurance company.
    In the '30s, it was recognized by the Franklin Roosevelt Administration that not all working people were being covered by company pension programs, and that after retirement those persons were living in privation. While private charities were able to aid some support, the problem was large enough to force government recognition. The solution was to set up a mandatory retirement/pension program for every working individual. The premiums necessary to support the program were to be paid by the employees, who would eventually retire and draw benefits from the government insurance pool. The controlling agency was the Social Security Administration, which exists today. Working employees have mandatory Social Security premiums deducted from their paychecks, and self-employed persons similarly are required to contribute to the government insurance pool. At age 65, a nonworking individual, who previously paid Social Security premiums, is no longer required to pay premiums and starts to withdraw a monthly allowance known as Social Security. That continues until the individual's death, at which time Social Security payments are stopped. The key element here is that Social Security payments are benefits being paid by an insurance company after some years of the individual having paid premiums. It is by no means a welfare program in which a government payment would be made to an individual without that individual having previously made a financial contribution.
    As in any insurance program, Social Security is a risk reduction program. Participation requires premium payments before any retirement benefits are paid to avoid privation. The main difference between Social Security and private annuity plans only involves the fact that Social Security premiums and inclusion in the program is mandatory for every working citizen. While private programs accomplish the same thing, they are not mandatory. It is also possible to have participation in Social Security and the simultaneous benefits of a private or company paid retirement program.
    Critics of the Social Security plan have related it to a Ponzi scheme, which it is not. A Ponzi scheme is a voluntary investment program wherein the investor contributes a sum of money with the expectation of obtaining significant gains. In fact, he does so on paper but usually lets the proceeds ride in a continuing expectation of further increases. However, the operator of the scheme has no intention of carrying out this program interminably and after a while closes it down with confiscation of all the assets. In addition, the scheme operator never had the ability to actually make the claimed investment gains, and in effect was selling snake oil.
    Conversely, the Social Security program is a legitimate operation for risk reduction. The participants in the mandatory program pay a premium for the probability of eventually receiving payments in their old age and avoiding privation. It is true that some individuals may have paid premiums for only a short period of time and reap considerable benefits from the pool if they have a long life. Conversely, there some individuals who may have paid mandatory premiums over a great many years and then died shortly after receiving only their early retirement benefits. However, that is the nature of insurance, as previously described. One pays for risk reduction. The similar case of apparent unfairness would be that a person pays fire insurance premiums on his house for a great many years and never has a claim against the insurance company, as mentioned in the first part of this write-up, but this lacks understanding of the basis of risk reduction through insurance.

Questioning Secrecy in a Stated Open Administration

The Washington Times says that the House Judiciary Committee opened an investigation Wednesday into whether Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. lied under oath in testimony about the Justice Department’s surveillance of journalists, while the White House declared again that President Obama “absolutely” has confidence in Mr. Holder. Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican, asked Mr. Holder in a letter to explain “discrepancies” between his sworn testimony before the panel earlier this month and the Justice Department’s decision to obtain a search warrant for the emails of James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News.
The Republicans need to be persistent in this investigation, and sending a letter to the Atty. Gen. may not be enough. It gives the Atty. Gen. a greater opportunity to weasel word a reply, than if he were required to give verbal replies in open conversation. However, appropriate documents can always be used as a basis for verbal questioning.
There is much more at stake here than just the matter of lying on a search warrant involving James Rosen. The whole Administration has been involved in nefarious activities completely inconsistent with the stated promise of an open government.. It is past time to call the Administration to task, piece by piece.

Attitude on Congress

Open email to Congress:

    I apologize for the negativity and the harsh criticism indicated in the following email, which was sent to me by a political associate.

    However, I am making it public and sending it to you, because I believe it represents an attitude held by a large segment of the productive American public, and there may be something you can do about it.

ACS
[

mailto:Larrylilley11@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:13 PM
Subject: Fw: To our Senators and Representatives

As I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look at my country and my government. I shall only point out a very few things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold. I have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year! Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the Senate dining room costs the taxpayers. So please, enjoy your haircuts and meals on us. Last year, the president spent an estimated 1.4 $billion on himself and his family. The vice president spends $millions on hotels. They have had 8 vacations so far this year! And our House of Representatives and Senate have become America's answer to the Saudi royal family. You have become the "perfumed princes and princesses" of our country. In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. "Obama Care," a bill which no more than a handful of senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care insurance. You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the "one per centers," consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up nothing while you (as well as the president and veep) ask us to sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to blame the Republicans, anyway). You understand very well the only two rules you need to know - (1) How to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected. And you do this with the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote) who are looking for a handout rather than a job. Your so-called "safety net" has become a hammock for the lazy. And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on food stamps - pretty much all Democrat voters - and the program is absolutely rife with fraud with absolutely no congressional oversight? I would offer that you are not entirely to blame. What changed you is the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed yourselves. It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you have achieved a leadership role. To paraphrase President Reagan, it appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a remarkably strong resemblance to the oldest. As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 - 1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." I'm only guessing that this applies to the female sex as well. Tell me, is there a more corrupt entity in this country than Congress? While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us (just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must purchase, how much soda or hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy. Countless thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses costing the consumer more and more every day. As I face my final year, or so, , my president and my government tell me "You'll just have to take a pill," while you, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government officials and their families will get the best possible health care on our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you voted for yourselves and we pay for. The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied, hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has heard us and actually cares. I only hope that occasionally you might quietly thank the taxpayer for all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $17 trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your grandchildren and ours, ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up the tab. My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and continue to destroy this country I deeply love and put it so far in debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the minute, because of your power. For you will never stand up to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American people. And that is how power has corrupted you and the entire Congress. The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term limits. This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs. And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up. Sincerely, Riley Hutcheson 2404 HUMBLE AVE. MIDLAND, TEXAS 79705

Reduced Communication with the President

    I received a form email from the Presidential Correspondence Team.
    In the first paragraph of that email it said, "The President has promised the most transparent administration in history, and we are committed to listening to and responding to you".
    The message then goes on to say that I will not be able to email the President directly at "comments@whitehouse.gov", as I was able to do previously.
    I will now have to fill out a form at a website each time I wish to send a message to the White House.

Immigration Reform and Debt Ceiling

Open email to Sen. Cruz (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    I have read your newsletter.
    Thank you for your efforts to bring practicality to the Immigration Reform Bill. Unfortunately, you have failed, because of insufficient support of other Senate members. You also say in your newsletter that in its current form, the bill is highly unlikely to pass the House, and if Congress cannot pass immigration reform, that will be a terrible outcome. I tend to disagree with that statement. I believe that a bad immigration reform bill would be worse than our present situation, because once a bad bill becomes law it is very difficult to change. Consider Obamacare as an example. The good news is that it is unlikely to pass the House.
    You also say that 60 votes are presently required in order to approve a debt ceiling increase, but that a proposal has been made for a "budget conference" which would allow a budget increase with only 50 votes. You are fighting against that, and I strongly support your position. We have engaged in 50 years of compromise, which has led us to our present precarious financial position. You must hold the line.

Commentary on War II

    I have had a reply from one of my Political Associates on my previous essay entitled, "Commentary on War". It is included at the bottom of this writing, and brings up items, on which I believe I need to make further comment.
    For the present purposes, I believe we need a better definition of war. I suggest we limit to a military conflict, in which a country can be involved directly or ancillary, as a supplier of war materials or financing thereof.
    For a war to be "legitimate", it must have an objective of gain. That is, the gain of achievement must exceed the cost of the war in terms of life and property. Herein lies the possibility of controversy, but I prefer to interpret gain as the direct, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for the American public. Objectives such as "saving the world for democracy" and "eliminating world communism" are not legitimate, because they are unrealistic for accomplishment.

    Our Political Associate has brought up two wars, which I had not covered in my previous writing.
    There were two types of Indian wars. Early wars of the colonists against Eastern Indians had an objective of taking over Indian land. Similarly, later wars of the US had an objective of taking over Western land from the Indians. Both were legitimate operations, from the colonists and US points of view. The objectives were realized in both cases with obvious gains.
    "Desert Storm" had an objective of repelling a Kuwait invasion by Iraq. There was no objective of gain for the US. The war did not make Kuwaiti oil more or less available to the American public, and I consider this an illegitimate war.

Here are the earlier Political Associate comments:

Very interesting assessment.  It is interesting in retrospect to look at wars and which are perceived to have been justified.  I think that our judgment is somewhat clouded by the perception of the US’s success in that war. 

Conflicts not mentioned include all the American Indian wars that lead to the conquest of much of the Continental territory, and Desert Storm conflict (Iraq 1).  I also have wondered if we had maintained our conquest in certain conflicts if we would think of them differently.  I personally think that the oil fields of Iraq should belong to the USA at least until the debt incurred in the Iraq war is paid off.  If after conquering the Comanche Indians for instance, America had decided not to occupy the land conquered, I think a much different opinion of those conflicts would exist.

 My other opinion of war is that it should be all out and with everything we got.  Vietnam and Korea were both ‘Police’ actions and the American public was not called into the conflict.  Our soldiers were restricted in the actions that they could take and the goal was never to win.  The public will never get behind a conflict like that.

Collecting Information on Nefarious Government Activities

The Washington Times says that House Republicans’ chief investigator issued a subpoena Tuesday for State Department documents that he said would shed light on how the administration wrote the “talking points” that were used to give a wrong impression of the September terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa told Secretary of State John F. Kerry to provide all communications regarding the talking points from 10 department officials, including Victoria Nuland, who was chief spokeswoman at the time, and Deputy Secretary William Burns.
A Fox News analyst yesterday also brought to our attention the fact that sensitive communications between top officials in the US government seldom use emails, because of the deficiency that they can be traced. Instead, communications are done by direct conversation or by secured telephone lines.
Considering the above, it would appear unlikely that Chairman Issa will obtain much significant information through emails or departmental memos. He will have use the police and interrogation techniques, which involve interminable questioning of suspects under separate conditions, in the expectation that conflicting stories will be found or one of them become so guilt ridden or tired that he breaks down and reveals valuable information.

Commentary on War

As government representatives and news analysts continue discussions of involving the US in various international disputes, particularly Syria, it might be appropriate to consider some of the purposes of war and our experience with the various wars, in which we have engaged.

The reason for this consideration is that wars are expensive in terms of property and lives lost. As with any other action, we need to consider whether the potential gains will be worth the losses. Such considerations are always subjective, but should be made as objective as possible. I have taken the view that gains must be specific for the population as a whole, rather than any small group or government leadership.

With that preliminary consideration, we can take a look at the major wars which have involved our population.

Revolutionary War
     Desire of the Population: Release from perceived unfair taxation and desire for independence (freedom).
     Justification; Yes

War of 1812
     Desire of the Population: Maintain freedom. Extension of the Revolutionary War
     Justification: Yes:

Mexican War
     Desire of the Population: Freedom from Mexican control
     Justification: Yes

Civil War
     Desire of the Population: Mixed. North: Maintain Union and force cotton producers to sell to northern mills. South: Economic freedom to sell cotton wherever desired.
     Justification: Yes

Spanish-American War
     Desire of the Population: Minimal with respect to freeing Cuba and other Spanish controlled territories unrelated to America.
     Justification: No

World War I
     Desire of the Population: Emotional, unrelated to a self-interest.
     Justification: No

World War II
     Desire of the Population: Defense, after attack by Japan
     Justification: Yes

Korean War
     Desire of the Population: Neutral. Government forcing "control foreign communism"
     Justification: No

Vietnam War
     Desire of the Population: Neutral. Government forcing "control foreign communism"
     Justification: No

Iraq War
     Desire of the Population: Neutral. Government forcing "establish foreign democracy"
     Justification: No

Afghanistan War.
     Desire of the Population: Neutral. Government forcing "establish foreign democracy"
     Justification: No

  Of the 11 major wars, which have involved our population, I have judged 6 to have been unjustified based on a perceived specific net gain to the population as compared to loss of life and property. This is undoubtedly arguable, and others would likely have a completely different judgment. However, I still maintain the major point that any war should be able to demonstrate a net gain of advantage for the population involved. If no net gain can be anticipated prior to involvement in the war, or preludes such as skirmish, conflict, economic support, etc., then it is obvious that the correct course of action should be a nonstarter.
     As we consider potential involvements in any controversy, such as the now existing possibilities with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and perhaps several others, we need to concern ourselves with what we would really gain.

Sen. McCain on Syria

The Washington Post says Sen. John McCain made a secret trip to Syria to talk with the rebels.

The rebel leaders who met with Sen. McCain asked for help in the establishment of a no-fly zone, delivery of anti-aircraft weapons and U.S. air strikes on military targets associated with the [present] government.

None of that is surprising.

The question is why did Sen. McCain not also meet with leaders of the present government? Is Sen. McCain biased against the present Syrian government, or does he know something about them that we do not?

It seems to me that there is insufficient information on which to have an opinion concerning which side is the proper one in the present Syrian Civil War.

More importantly, the US has no basis for nation building in either supporting the present government or the rebels. Taking a financial or military position on either side is completely unjustified, since the existence of either the present government or a new rebel government would have no immediate effect on the US.

In this case, I support Pres. Obama's position, as he demonstrates reticence in becoming involved.

In addition, I warn against warmongers such as Sen. McCain, who would have the US involved in any skirmish taking place on the planet. Sen. McCain knows little about war. He only knows about the hardship of having sat in a prisoner of war camp, under adverse conditions for many years. I suppose that experience is enough to impress him emotionally, but also does not make him knowledgeable.

Religious Practice Department Of Defense

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer:

Dear Rep .Neugebauer,
    In your latest newsletter, you said, " Besides the Constitutional protection for freedom of religious expression, the DoD is also required to provide our troops with certain protections for religious freedom.  I’m worried these freedoms are being trampled on.  In an effort to get more information about my concerns, I joined my colleagues in a letter to the Secretary of Defense, asking him to detail how he is addressing these issues.  It is imperative that we defend the right of religious freedom for the men and women who sacrifice so much to defend our country".
    You are completely on target, and I congratulate you for the action you have taken with the Secretary of Defense. The Constitution says that the federal government must neither promote or discourage religion or any form thereof.
    Anti-religious sects are a form of religion. Their opinions and comments should be allowed First Amendment expression, as should also those of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc..
    However, the federal government should make no restriction or promotion of any religious or anti-religious program in its operations. This means the Department of Defense may not promote or deny any individuals or groups the free expression of their First Amendment free-speech rights through individual or group presentations within the military establishment. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, akin to breathing, taking in food and waste eliminations, and allowance must be made for its free exercise in any organized practice.

Honoring the Fallen in Smithville, Texas

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):
   
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have read your latest newsletter on "Honoring the fallen in Smithville, Texas".
    Nice political touch. Shows compassion, which we all should have and hopefully will appeal to at least some voters.
    However, I would like to remind you that many of us will put more weight on your contributions to the welfare of the country, rather than on your degree of compassion.

Military Support

The Washington Times quotes Pres. Obama as saying in a weekly address, presumably related to Memorial Day, that the country must care for the loved ones the fallen leave behind. He says the country must also make sure that all veterans receive the care and benefits they have earned. He also said that, above all, the armed forces must have the support needed to carry out their missions at home and abroad.
As usual, Pres. Obama mostly lacks specificity.
I agree with his above political statement. What American would not?
However, I will try to add the necessary specificity to make it realistic.
With respect to families of deceased soldiers, they should be adequately covered by government life insurance. The Veterans Administration says, " As part of our mission to serve Service members, Veterans, and their families, VA provides valuable life insurance benefits to give you the peace of mind that comes with knowing your family is protected. VA's life insurance programs were developed to provide financial security for your family given the extraordinary risks involved in military service". This means to me that veterans families already have reasonable financial coverage. If the amounts of coverage are too small, they should be increased consistent with today's economy. With respect to alleviating emotional trauma, that is traditionally left to the families themselves, friends and neighbors. I see no need to change that.
Veterans receiving care and benefits they have earned is another matter. It is generally accepted that the Veterans Administration is not doing an effective job in implementing the laws and benefits provided by Congress. I have had personal experience with my grandson, who returned from a tour as a tank driver in Iraq and later decided not to reenlist. He desired to take advantage of the educational benefits, but was unable to obtain payment in a reasonable time. I had to supply the money for a year, and I'm not sure whether he ever did receive his full entitlement benefits. Since the VA is a federal agency reporting to Pres. Obama, he has the direct responsibility to see that it operates efficiently.
Ancillary to receiving care, much of that involves medical care, and I note specifically the preposterous accumulation of quadriplegics requiring such care by inefficiency of the military. Almost invariably, quadriplegic damages are caused by Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) placed on roadsides and other generally American military trafficked area by the enemy. The American vehicles are blown sky-high with subsequent considerable damage and death to our soldiers. It seems to me that after 5 to 10 years, the military should be able to reduce this problem to a negligible effect, but it apparently has been unable to do so.
With respect to the armed forces having the support needed to carry out their missions at home and abroad, this is a multifaceted problem. At present, the general public has a high regard and appreciation for military personnel, especially on this Memorial Day. However, it has not always been so. The public was generally antagonistic to US soldiers and veterans at the time of the Vietnam war, even though those personnel were draftees, with no choice of whether they served or not. The reason was that, it was a ridiculous war, presumably intended to stop the spread of communism, which was of no business to the American public. We similarly have tread on the same ground with respect to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In these cases, the public is not similarly aroused for various reasons, probably including the personal popularity of Pres. Obama. But for the military personnel to obtain proper public respect, it should be engaged in military matters which the public perceives as legitimate. That is, the operations must be primarily a matter of defense and not meddling in international affairs of no direct influence to the US. It is the direct responsibility of the Commander in Chief, Pres. Obama. 

US Terrorist Policy

    According to the Washington Times,President Obama said Thursday that al Qaeda is nearly defeated and the war on terrorism has changed since he took office, and that demands a broad rethink that includes scaling down drone attacks, transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay and revisiting the 2001 congressional resolution that set the country on a perpetual war footing. Senior administration officials went further by telling reporters that Mr. Obama wants to jettison the whole mindset that the U.S. is still engaged in a war on terrorism.
    This is downright wrong, and I hope that the Congress and the American public do not believe it, because it can be dangerous. Terrorism is like cockroaches. They can be controlled but not eliminated. Terrorism is with us ad infinitum, and we must continue to recognize it.
    We have the homegrown variety, who are so dissatisfied with our society and government, that they vent their spleen on the public in general. The Oklahoma City bombing is an example.
    We have the Muslim based variety, which operates on the basis of the Koran that all nonbelievers must be eliminated.
    In order to control these, we must first recognize the problem. We have recognized it in the past and need to continue doing so. If we believe Pres. Obama speech and let down our guard, there is no doubt in my mind that we will have a significant increase in terrorist actions.
    For control, we need constant surveillance by the FBI and the public in general to thwart any terrorist actions before they take place. This is applicable to both the homegrown variety and the Muslim based variety.
    Contrary to Pres. Obama suggestion, we need continued control by satellite and personal surveillance to find locations of terrorist training camps and the leaders of terrorist organizations. The subsequent action should be then to use drones in order to dysfunction those hotbeds, at least on a temporary basis.
    The matter of closing Guantánamo is mostly a political maneuver. Moving foreign combatants of the war into the public criminal system only increases costs and concentrates more on the rights of an individual. Since these people are not US citizens and have been found to be foreign combatants, they have no rights. Any attempt by Pres. Obama to ameliorate the present Guantánamo handling is merely a concession to foreign Muslim individual terrorists and terrorist groups. Congress should see to it that Guantánamo is not closed. However, we should not hold those people indefinitely. They are we war criminals and should either be prosecuted as such or returned to their native countries. A military tribunal should make that decision in each case.
    With respect to "revisiting the 2001 congressional resolution that set the country on a perpetual war footing", Pres. Obama is suggesting that we let down our guard. It is obvious from the above paragraphs that this is an incorrect judgment. Neither the Congress nor the public should fall for it. This is not a conventional war of one nation against another. It is a war of one ideology against another, but with physical attributes of killing and property destruction. It will not go away. We must continue to recognize it and make appropriate preparations..

Federal Firearms Policy

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your form letter on the federal firearms policy.
    In your letter, you concluded that I am committed to reducing gun violence in America. This is true in part. I am committed to reducing all sorts of violence, including that from automobile accidents and natural disasters, such as floods and tornadoes.
    You went on to say that you want to prevent the horrific tragedies of Newtown, Aurora, and others from ever happening again, and you believe this begins with fully enforcing existing gun laws.
    From there, you went on to discuss the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as developed by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. You are now co-sponsoring the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 (S. 480). This legislation would plug holes in the background check system that have allowed violent criminals to slip through undetected.
With all due respect, I believe you are concentrating on the wrong thing. It is not that we want to continue massive gun violence, such as the school and theater shootings, but we do not want to increase controls on the holding of firearms by the general public. Guns are only one tool among many to kill people. As you know, there are explosive devices, knives, poisons and others, which the nefarious can dream up. We should not be concentrating on the implements, but rather on the perpetrators. I think the NICS Act and your Improvement proposal partially addresses that and should be continued. Mentally unbalanced people and those committed to an ideology of violence, such as terrorists, need to be controlled, but reducing availability of firearms is not the way to go.
To put this in perspective, the Second Amendment to the Constitution says that the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. This amendment was put there because it is important. In order to have an understanding of its importance, one needs to look at the context of the times at which it was written. The people had been subjected for many years to a despotic government and with creation of an independent state realized that despotism could happen again. Therefore, the Second Amendment exists as part of our Constitution not to allow mass murder activities by individuals or small groups, but rather to protect the people from its government.
Many of us do not want to give up our right to protect ourselves from a despotic government, of which you may be a part, in order to decrease internal civil violence by use of guns. Forget public desire for target shooting or use of firearms in hunting. Those uses are insignificant and in the same category as reducing gun violence. The main point of maintaining firearms in the general public arsenal is for possible need for protection against government. Some of those gun rights have already been infringed and need to be rescinded. Gun permits should not be required for concealed weapon or open carry. We should not be concentrating on implements for possible damage, but on the people who commit such atrocities.

Immigration Reform

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your form letter on immigration reform.
    I agree with the principle you covered in your form letter, and I also checked your website, as you had suggested.    
    I found your comments on Senate immigration bill S. 744, which passed the Senate on May 21. I also checked on each of your amendment proposals. The closest that I could find of significance was your amendment concerning special southern border control, which was apparently rejected by the Senate. Your other amendments seemed to me relatively insignificant.
    As I've said many times, it is not so much a matter of how a law is formulated, but how it is subsequently enforced. If the Senate immigration bill eventually becomes law and you subsequently find that it is not doing the job required for the American public, there is always an opportunity of subsequent amendment to that law.
    I've not read the whole Senate bill, but the mere fact that Sen. Schumer was involved tends to make me question whether it will accomplish much for the US. However, we have also had the involvement of Sen. Marco Rubio and even the somewhat questionable assistance of Sen. McCain. The likelihood is that it should not be too bad.
    Since the Senate has already apparently voted on the bill, the next step will be resolution of differences between it and the House version and final approval by Pres. Obama. Let's see how works out and hope that we don't have another Obamacare on our hands.

What Happened to Reducing the Size of the Federal Government?

    The Washington Times says that Conservative Republicans will demand Congress produce a budget that balances in 10 years in exchange for agreeing to raise the federal debt limit,
    This means that for each of the next 10 years the federal government will be able to spend more than it collects in taxes, thus each year seeing that the federal debt rises.
    What happened to our program to reduce the size of the federal government, which would automatically reduce expenses? We had a good start with the sequester. Do we now going to throw that out and engage in our continued spending spree, which each year makes the federal government larger and more powerful?
    What can we do to stop this and return to our original objective of reducing the size of federal government?
Do we need to each election year vote in new Congressional people to replace incumbents, who are obviously on the wrong track?

Intimidation Tactics of the Obama Administration

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
     I have read your latest newsletter which concentrated on "Obama Administration Promotes a Culture of Intimidation".
     Since it first took office, the Obama Administration has engaged in an undeclared war against Congress. The purpose of the war is to make Congress irrelevant in the US government.
     Your newsletter mentions intimidation, and I suspect that you meant it to be applied to the general public, and particularly to targets of the IRS. However, it is my belief that the Obama administration has been intimidating Congress for more than five years and by this process has accomplished much in its effort to make Congress irrelevant.
     However, even if by accident, I am much pleased to see that Congress is finally standing up on his hind legs and trying to regain the position of authority, which was originally granted to it by the Constitution. The challenges to the Administration on the Benghazi, IRS, and AP News matters are finally a recognition that war has been in progress for quite some time and that if Congress does not do something, it will lose.
     Congratulations for being part of those congressional individuals who have finally taken a leadership position in the conflict.

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (Texas)

Open email to Sen. Cruz (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your newsletter and have a few comments is follows:

I agree that we must show compassion and physical help for the victims of the recent Oklahoma tornadoes, and also victims of tornadoes and floods in other states. On a more constructive note, tornadoes and floods have been around for quite some time, and we should have some better procedures for handling them. I do not offer any specific suggestions at this time, but raise the point that more could be done to avert the extent of the tragedies. For the really big thinkers, instead of wasting their time on considerations of global warming, perhaps they should switch their sights to weather control. A combination of weather control and damage control should do much to alleviate human suffering.

With respect to the recent IRS practice of targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny on tax exemption, you said that we must ensure those responsible are held accountable, simplify and shorten our tax code, and dramatically reduce the IRS's scope of power in our lives so this kind of political intimidation never happens again. I agree with all three of your proposals and would like to see you personally become involved in developing the details for each of these. However, it is impractical to think that such things will never happen again. Humans being what they are, they will be lax in policing any area to be controlled, and the disadvantages will again reappear. Municipalities have ongoing police forces to control local crime. Congress must do the same.

On immigration reform, I strongly suggest you listen to the program details of Marco Rubio. However, perhaps similar to you, Sen. Rubio is a junior senator, without the experience of dealing with devious Democrats. He will need help in avoiding Democrats writing a 400-page immigration bill. Think about it in terms of the practice of our governmental forefathers. The main points can be covered in a half dozen pages and pushed through as law, with amendments added, wherever a federal court seems to have a subsequent misinterpretation.



In general, I want to thank you for the excellent job you been doing in the Senate for the people of Texas and the country as a whole.

Rep. Neugebauer's Newsletter

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer (Texas) Texas:

Dear Randy,
    I read your latest newsletter. Here are a few comments.
    In your commencement address to the graduating class of Texas Tech University, among other things you said,  Don’t be discouraged by failure.  Instead, look for the opportunities it creates". Amen! Great advice!
    On the Keystone pipeline for delivery of oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast, you have been pushing for its development. Congratulations! Please keep up the good work. Pres. Obama has been delaying approval of the pipeline in deference to environmental groups who have supported him during the past election. Those same environmental groups are no longer "environmental groups", they have been infiltrated by Socialist/Communists, who abhor any expansion of capitalism in the US.
    On Obamacare, you say that Sec.Sebelius, of Health and Human Services (HHS), has been soliciting private funds to implement the system. You find this objectionable and hope to reduce that activity. Good move! Anything you can do to help junk Obamacare will be a valuable contribution to the economy.
    On the IRS program to give special scrutiny to conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, I appreciate your interest. However I do not see that you are involved. May I respectfully suggest that you personally try to do something to correct the situation, rather than just report.

More Objective Advice for the EPA

    On April 19, I wrote concerning the abusive controls on industry imposed by the EPA, and particularly the use of its Scientific Advisory Board in rubberstamping those operations. My point was that the members of the Scientific Advisory Board are hand-chosen from universities, which receive substantial federal grants. Those board members then knowing where their bread is buttered are much inclined to vote favorably on any EPA proposed actions.
    My last sentence in that April 19 essay was as follows: "The EPA is using the SAB is a charade to augment its power and impose unnecessary regulations as dictated by the President. It is up to Congress to investigate this matter and take corrective action. (Ref. C&E News 4/1/13)).
    We now have some good news on the subject.
    Rep. Christopher Stewart (Utah) has proposed a bill which he says will bring more balance and expertise to the EPA's science advice. The bill (H.R.1422) has already been approved by the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, which also voted to send it for a full House Vote.
    The major part of the bill is to allow unlimited public comment at SAB meetings. Previous commenters were allowed 5 to 7 minutes to speak their piece. Public commenters include representatives from industry, including scientists, research institutions, consultancies, universities, environmental, and health groups. There have been various objections to increasing the presentation time, but it should be noted that EPA operations are intended to be in the public interest, and the public should have unlimited time in which to show that interest. An analogy is the presence of filibuster policy in the Senate, wherein a Senator may speak as long as he likes in the public interest.
    In addition, the bill would also expand industry representation on the SAB. Scientists with substantial and relevant expertise could serve as advisers even if they have a potential financial interest in the boards advisory activities - as long as that interest is fully disclosed. This is really not a basic change, since as I have previously indicated, the previous practice has been to include university scientists, who have a fundamental financial interest.
    The House bill needs Senate approval, which is a limited likelihood, but as the Chemical and Engineering News reporter says, it could be tacked onto a larger bill with broad political support, and could include Pres. Obama's signature.

Practical Control of Federal R&D

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an agency of the federal government. It has blown and continues to blow billions of taxpayer dollars on worthless projects under the general term of Research and Development. For example, two projects are monetary grants to universities for topics, such as the International Criminal Court and The history of Scientific Conservation in South America.
    I have been attacking this ridiculous expenditure of taxpayer money to universities for some time and perhaps coincidentally, we finally see some progress.
    Congratulations to Rep. Lamar S Smith (Texas) Chair of the House Of Representatives Science, Space, and Technology Committee, who is circulating a draft bill that would require the NSF Director to adhere to three new criteria for every research grant. They are:
        1. The project must be in the interests of the US.
        2. The project must address problems of utmost importance to society at large.
        3. The project doesn't duplicate other work at NSF or other federal agencies.
    While I have for some time been advocating the elimination of all Research and Development grants to universities by federal agencies, this is a step in the right direction. It is not that I am opposed to Research and Development, but rather that such R&D should be performed by private entities either in-house or through contract with universities. The major purpose of privately supported R&D is that companies pay close attention to how their money is spent, as opposed to the federal government, which merely concentrates on spending the maximum amount without clear direction of purpose.
    If Rep. Lamar's draft becomes a bill, which eventually passes through the Senate and President, the number of NSF grants and the cost thereof will be reduced, and we will be more effectively traveling in the direction of reduced federal budgets.

The Syrian Conflict

Open email to Sen. Cornyn:

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Your form letter below apparently responds to my letter to you of May 6, at which time I gave you a number of reasons why we should not be involved in the Syrian revolution. The last line of my message was, "President Obama has the ability to promulgate our involvement in the Syrian revolution without a formal declaration. It is up to Congress to see that it doesn't happen".
    Apparently you didn't like any of my reasons for our noninvolvement in the Syrian revolution, because you are now beating the war drum. I also note another change in the situation. Pres. Obama seems rather reluctant to become involved, for which I now credit him with at least one aspect of good sense.
    Congressional members are supposed to maintain rationality and consider in their actions all of the attributes necessary to be classified as statesmen acting for the good of the people.
    With the above-stated objective, how would US Government involvement in the Syrian conflict benefit US citizens?
    Let's take a few items that you may not like.
    You say the government has killed 70,000 of its own people. I doubt not only the number but also the basic idea. Think about it. Why would the government kill its own people? If killing is involved, it involves a civil war, in which rebels are attempting to take control of the government. War kills people. If the rebels have no uniforms it doesn't qualify them as civilians. They are still a militant force against the government. Occasionally, there is collateral damage and some innocent children may also be killed. However, that may have also involved parents putting their children at risk in an effort to hide rebel activities, in which case the parents are part of the revolution. If you don't like the killing of those people, what do you plan to do about it? Send in US military forces or supply weapons so that more people are killed?
    You may think that we have an obligation to support the establishment of democracy throughout the world. If so, that is a naïve approach. We have been doing that for years at great sacrifice in manpower and money. What did we accomplish with the Vietnam war? We recently helped the rebels in Egypt. Is Egypt now a democratic country? How about Libya? Iraq? Afghanistan? All great successes in fostering democracy to the poorly deprived people previously under the yoke of autocracy? What about the opposition of the Russians and Chinese in supporting the Syrian rebels? Do you believe Russian and Chinese leaders are stupid or have some ulterior motive that we don't understand. If the latter, why not ask them, before we start throwing more money and equipment into something that apparently is none of our business.?

    Perhaps you don't like chemical weapons. Would you rather see people die of bullet or explosive action rather than chemical action?
    Syria's neighbors are Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. Do you see these neighbors rushing in to help either the existing Syrian government or the rebels? As a matter of fact, if they did, you would suspect another ulterior motive of territorial expansion and then presumably have another justification for US involvement.
    Sen. Cornyn, I strongly suggest that you are on the wrong track in any action which would promulgate US involvement in the Syrian revolution. May I suggest the alternative of "hands off" and concern yourself with major interests of the United States, such as concentration on reduction of US government size and power.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov [mailto:SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:08 PM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office

Dear Dr. Sucsy:   Thank you for contacting me regarding the United States’ policy toward Syria.  I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.   On March 18, 2011, the Syrian people commenced widespread and peaceful protests against President Bashar al-Assad and his regime.  Subsequently, President Assad and his government forces launched a violent response.  According to the United Nations, as of February 2013, the death toll in Syria is likely near 70,000.  The violent oppression by the Assad regime continues unabated, with the regime failing to deliver promised reforms and instead utilizing overwhelming force against the protestors.     Since August 2011, President Obama has called for Assad’s resignation, supporting United Nations Security Council action to facilitate his removal.  Yet to date, the Security Council has been deadlocked due to obstruction by Russia and China.  I also find it concerning that President Obama would take a hard stance against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons if he does not into to back it up with concrete steps.  In doing so, the President undermines U.S. credibility and sends confusing messages to our friends and foes alike.   Furthermore, I have pressed the Obama Administration to end all U.S. government business dealings with Rosoboronexport���the Russian state-owned arms broker that facilitates the Russian Federation’s arms transfers to Syria.  I am deeply troubled that the U.S. Army continued to do business with Rosoboronexport, purchasing dozens of dual-use Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan military, as the atrocities in Syria have continued.  It is unconscionable that U.S. taxpayers would be forced to pay for a contract with a Russian firm that is simultaneously enabling the Assad regime to murder its own people.     Because the Obama Administration ignored my requests, I offered Senate Amendment 3260 to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13 NDAA; P.L. 112-239), which prohibits the use of funding for the U.S. government to enter into any further contracts or business agreements with Rosoboronexport.  I am pleased that this provision was included in the final version of the FY13 NDAA, as signed into law on January 2, 2013.   However, I am deeply troubled that despite this law, reports indicate that the Army plans to enter into a new contract with Rosoboronexport to procure additional helicopters.  As a result, I have twice written to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel calling on him to halt this effort.  You may be certain that I will continue to press the Administration to end these business dealings.   The people of Syria have demonstrated a hunger for freedom, and the United States has a solemn duty to support their human rights and democratic aspirations.  I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and I will keep your views in mind as the United States’ policy toward Syria is discussed.  Thank you for taking the time to contact me.   Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN United States Senator     517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-2934 Fax: (202) 228-2856 http://www.cornyn.senate.gov   Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.   PLEASE NOTE: Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered.  If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.

Internet Tax

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn:

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Your form email below apparently refers to a message I sent you on April 24. The last line of my previous message was, "We do not want increased revenue to any branches of government, which would tend to increase the size and power of those government branches".
    Since then, the Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act (S. 743) on May 6, 2013, which would grant states the authority to compel certain out-of-state vendors to collect taxes on sales made to their residents.
    You said that you voted against S.743 for several reasons, none of which include reducing revenues to various branches of government with the objective of decreasing their size and power. In other words, we seem to be accidentally on the same wavelength.
    The dangerous part of this Senate vote on the Internet sales tax is a clear indication that in spite of various commitments by individual members to reduce the size of government, the group as a whole continues with its high spending, large government philosophy of the past 50 years.
    S.743 has passed the Senate. We can only hope that the House will have more sense. If they do not, you can be sure that Pres. Obama will sign the measure and we will be continuing on our rampant road to overall government expansion through increased taxation to the people.   

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov [mailto:SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:40 AM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office

Dear Dr. Sucsy:   Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet commerce and state and local taxes.  I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on these matters.   According to the United States Census Bureau, $3.9 trillion worth of retail and wholesale transactions took place on the Internet in 2011.  It is important that the federal government does not over-regulate or over-tax e-commerce, especially at a time when unemployment remains high and small businesses are struggling to create jobs.  Congress must ensure that taxpayers are not subjected to multiple taxes and needless complexity.   However, since the passage of the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-108), which established a temporary moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes of e-commerce, a number of legislative proposals have been introduced that would affect state and local policies.  Most recently, the Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act (S. 743) on May 6, 2013, which would grant states the authority to compel certain out-of-state vendors to collect taxes on sales made to their residents.     I could not support S. 743.  While I understand the view of many Texans that there is a need to level the playing field between online retailers and brick and mortar retailers, I have concerns regarding the costs, complexity, and administrative burdens this legislation would impose on small businesses and its overall impact on the economy and job creation.  At a time when millions of Americans remain out of work, small businesses should be spending their time and resources creating jobs, not cutting through miles of burdensome red tape.  Congress should focus on enacting low-tax, commonsense policies that promote economic growth, entrepreneurship, and private-sector job creation.   In addition, S. 743 raises fundamental constitutional questions related to federalism and state sovereignty by allowing states to collect taxes from out-of-state vendors.  These issues deserve careful consideration.  As a result, I am concerned that the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter, was not allowed to hold a full hearing and debate on this legislation.  Instead, the Majority Leader rushed the bill through the Senate without a full and complete debate and amendment process.  For these reasons, I voted against allowing S. 743 to bypass normal Senate procedure, and I could not support passage of this legislation.   I am honored to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as Congress considers legislation affecting state and local tax policies during the 113th Congress.  Thank you for taking the time to contact me.   Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN United States Senator     517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-2934 Fax: (202) 228-2856 http://www.cornyn.senate.gov   Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.   PLEASE NOTE: Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered.  If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.

Immigration System

Open email to Sen. Cornyn:

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have read your newsletter on the subject that a great country, such as the US, deserves a great immigration system.
    I agree completely, and I believe you will find few people who disagree. As you know, the main problem is that a "great immigration system" is a matter of interpretation. To Democrats in general, it means entrance of a host of uneducated immigrants, who will be given the right to vote Democratic. For users of labor, such as meatpacking plants and farm producers, it means availability of cheap labor. Simultaneously, all of these relate to the fact that we have several million illegal immigrants already in the US.    You do not address any of these problems in your newsletter, and these are the things that need to be addressed.    I make a strong recommendation that you closely adhere to the proposed program of Marco Rubio, the Florida Senator. He has his head screwed on right, with respect to the details of the problem and valid solutions. Unfortunately, he is relatively new in the Senate and does not fully understand the gyrations and manipulations of opposing groups. It has been said that he has gotten together with some Democrats, such as Sen. Schumer, and allowed them to write a 400-page bill. With your experience, you know that a person who writes a bill is going to phrase it in terms favorable to his wants and beliefs. The fact that it is 400 pages is following the recent procedure of using verbiage to hide within a bill those items to which the opposition might take exception.
    I strongly suggest that you get together with Sen. Rubio and draft a practical legible bill, which is short enough to not be deceptive and includes the various factors that Sen. Rubio has carefully studied.

Rep. Neugebauer's (Texas) Newsletter

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer:

Dear Randy,
    I have read your Newsletter.

    You have commented on the recent revelation that the Internal Revenue Service has penalized various conservative groups by requiring additional paperwork. You abhor this use of partisan politics in various branches of the government, and you imply that this should be stopped and a program arranged so that this never happens again.    I am a bit surprised at your naivety in this situation. All agencies of the federal government are susceptible to political manipulation, as they report to a single boss, in his case Pres. Obama.
    Specifically for the IRS, the basis of the organization was the appointment of a Commissioner by Pres. Lincoln in Congress in 1862. The procedure for the appointment of all subsequent Commissioners is basically the same. The Commissioner is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
    The present IRS Acting Commissioner is Steven T Miller. Note that since he is only Acting Commissioner, it is not clear to me whether he has been approved by the Senate. Approved or not, his boss is Pres. Obama, who presumably put him in and can take him out. At present, if Pres. Obama gives in order that certain conservative organizations should be penalized in tax treatment, Acting Commissioner Steven Miller is obligated to conform. An inactive or inattentive Congress would allow the situation to continue. Similarly, we can be sure that future Congresses will at some time be inactive or inattentive and this use of politics in the IRS will be repeated. Even if the IRS is put under complete control of Congress, there is still a possibility of political partiality.
    Political influence cannot be eliminated in government. It can only be controlled, and it is Congress's responsibility to see that the most flagrant abuses are controlled.
    I call on you, Rep. Neugebauer to initiate an action in Congress which will help alleviate flagrant use of political power in all agencies of the federal government.
    With respect Obamacare you say that you will be voting for its repeal for the 37th time. As you well know, until you can get a two thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to override Pres. Obama's obvious veto, Obamacare will be the law of the land.
    I have no magic suggestions. I think you are on the right track in continuing to press for repeal of the law. With this continued pressure, you may in time be successful. Keep up the good fight.

    Congratulations on your appointment to the Congressional Working Group dedicated to fixing the Endangered Species Act.
    Traditional abuses by various federal agencies involved the Snail Darter and now the Lesser Prairie-Chicken. As you know, these abuses come about because of government imposed limitations on private use of property. It is suspected that The Endangered Species Act is used in many cases to inhibit land development for economic purposes, when such development is contrary to the ideology of the federal government. An obvious example is that oil drilling could not be conducted on private land, because it might endanger a specific type of bird fish, or plant. This is obviously ridiculous, even though some environmentalists may have a legitimate concern for these various species.
    An obvious solution is to transport, as necessary, parents of an endangered species to government land, where it can be adequately protected. If we have found in the development of the United States the validity of setting up government lands for Indians, why would it not be used for much lesser forms of life? Government already has a large amount of federal lands in the form of national parks and wilderness areas, which could be used for this purpose.

    With respect to the Farm Bill, my major suggestion is to eliminate from the budget all forms of welfare, such as food stamps and public feeding programs, such as school lunches. These are welfare items and should be designated as such with a separate budget. We need to expose our welfare costs directly to the American taxpayer, so that he can make a proper decision on the cost legitimacy.

Education and Illegal Homosexual Insurance Coverage in Texas

Open email to Texas State Sen. Dan Patrick:

Dear Sen. Patrick,
    I have read your newsletter, which covers two major points.
    I basically agree with your proposed high school educational program, which deaccents the advocacy that all high school students should prepare themselves to enter college. Everyone having a college education has been an unrealistic goal. Unrealistic, to the extent that colleges and universities now operate to teach only the intellectual aspects of life and ignore the more practical side, such as mechanical repair, retail sales, law enforcement, oil drilling, and the like. It is past time to recognize the societal need to educate its young people in the practical aspects as well as intellectual pursuits. Congratulations to you for recognizing this and taking the first steps of changing this for the great state of Texas.
    I was also especially intrigued about your discussion concerning the granting of insurance benefits to same-sex partners by various Texas municipalities. This seemed a little outside your normal concern with education, but is obviously of great significance to Texas.
    For those who have not read your newsletter or followed your activities, I summarize the situation as follows: The people of Texas have voted on and a law has been established, which clearly specifies that marriage is defined as between one man one woman, and that any other combination has no legal status. You then found that several municipalities in Texas were offering special insurance benefits based upon a homosexual relationship. You questioned Attorney General Abbott for his opinion on this matter. Atty. Gen. Abbott replied that while the legality would be a court decision, he believes that the present practice of the municipalities is illegal.
    We seem to have left the matter of illegal insurance benefit practice in limbo. We have your question and Atty. Gen. Abbott's opinion, but what are we doing next? Since the Attorney General believes that the municipalities are operating illegally on this insurance matter, is it not the Attorney General's responsibility to start prosecution?