Sen. Cruz (Texas) on Obamacare, US Economy, and Texas Voting

Open email to Sen. Cruz (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    I have read your Newsletter and have the following comments:

Defunding Obamacare    We appreciate your efforts to defund Obamacare, which would effectively neutralize it. Presumably, you plan to do this through voting against the funding continuance in late September. I hope you are able to get a number of your associates to side with you on this issue.

The US Economy    It seems that you are appealing to the President to give up his health care program, which is anticipated to be destructive to the US economy, on top of the rather anemic performance to date. I have serious doubts that you will be successful in that endeavor. Pres. Obama has clearly indicated he is not interested in the US economy. He is interested in establishing worldwide socialism with transference to the United Nations, over which he will assume an Emperor position. I suggest you use a different strategy.

Texas Voting
    US Atty. Gen. Holder is attacking the state of Texas on the issue of qualifying voters. The Atty. Gen. contends that he has the right to require Texas voting laws to be cleared by the federal government, specifically him. He will presumably take Texas to a federal court on this issue.
    I don't know that you can do anything specific on this issue. It seems to me that Gov. Perry and his Administration will have to fight this in federal court.

Preserve Government Helium Reserves

Dear Senators Cornyn and Cruz,

    I strongly encourage you to vote AGAINST  Senate Bill S.783, if it comes up for a full vote in the Senate. S.783 is called the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 and is sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). It would force the sale of government helium reserves to private industry.
    The American Chemical Society (ACS) has a strong promotional program asking members to contact their Senators to vote for this bill. Presumably, the reason is that there is a temporary shortage of helium in the public marketplace, which has boosted the price and made it inconvenient for industrial/medical users. The ACS says, "Passage of S. 783 will avert a shortfall of this crucial material.  Without congressional action, the resulting helium shortage would threaten to disrupt manufacturing and research all over the country and make this already rare and valuable commodity more expensive".
    There are 19 listed uses for helium. http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/energy/helium/helium_facts.html. Several of these are of strategic military and security importance. For example, helium is used as an insulator in liquid hydrogen/oxygen rockets, cooling medium for nuclear reactors, blimps for border control, high speed ‘push gas’ inside air-to-air missiles for guidance corrections, and artificial atmospheres for divers and others working under pressure.
    Other than federal government reserves, there are relatively high purity deposits of helium in North Africa, the Middle East, and Russia. In the US, the helium content of natural gas in Texas, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma runs 0.5 to 1.5% this helium is extractable by cryogenic means. If the public market needs helium, it can easily be made available by industrial production.
    Congress envisioned the strategic importance of helium as early as 1924 by establishing a process of government reserve. I caution you not to disturb that stability for short-term pressure of making helium more available to the public at low prices. Industry can do this itself, without government help. 

Rep. Neugebauer on Phone Records Seizure and Defunding Obamacare

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer (Texas):

Dear Rep Neugebauer,    I have read your Newsletter and have the following comments:

National Security Agency (NSA)    I believe you are confused on this issue concerning government protection of citizens from terrorism and seizure of private citizen records.
    You say you voted for the Nugent amendment, which prohibits NSA from acquiring and storing the content of any American’s communications, including phone calls and e-mails. Then you say NSA isn't collecting individual's information--just numbers and times. Rep.Neugebauer, believe me, when I say that "numbers and times" ARE individual's information. Each phone number and time of call is related to a particular individual. You may say that NSA will not look at who the individual is and certainly not the content of the message, but we have no assurance that is correct. In addition, you say NSA cannot get information on the content of any communication without first getting a separate, specific court order. You certainly know that to obtain a court order an individual must be named, which proves that NASA already has in its records the name of an individual relating to each phone call. That is clearly an infraction of the Fourth Amendment, which you so vigorously claim you support.
    You go further in making general claims, through third-party information, that the collection of phone records and times of individual have been of great value in thwarting terrorist activities. You indirectly claim that you cannot reveal this information because of its confidential nature. I suspect its confidential nature is only that NASA has been looking at various records, including those of many individuals. However, giving you some benefit of the doubt, I would like you to name at least one potential terrorist that we have in jail as a result of NSA's collection of phone records. I don't need to know how this was done, I would just like to know the name of the person who has been deterred.

Defunding Obamacare    I have previously written on this subject and you have received a copy.
    Your 35 votes against defunding have obviously accomplished little. The next push was to threaten a shutdown of the government, if Obamacare was not defunded. Fortunately, that threat has been withdrawn, since it would have been a disaster for the Republican Party. Millions of low-information voters depend on government free-stuff checks, as do legitimate Social Security receivers. A shutdown of the government would have meant disaster for the Republican Party in the next election.
    The best alternative for the defunding may be to use it as an amendment to any bill involving the federal government debt increase. The general low- information voters do not pay attention to our national debt.

Stopping Government Abuse

Open email to House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:
    Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Eric Cantor,
    I listened to your recent YouTube messages concerning your general program of stopping government abuse. You have two main points of general action; eliminate the IRS from application of Obamacare, and reign in federal red tape. Associated with that you mention out-of-control bureaucracy, abuses that threaten our economy, pay decrease for government employees under investigation, lavish conferences, bonuses, and general reforms.    All of the above is interesting, but I believe it misses the main point of our government problem.    We have developed within the US population over the past 80 or more years a strong attitude of socialism. The essence of socialism is division of wealth among the general population. In effect, it is a Robin Hood attitude of "steal from the rich and give to the poor". Through this procedure, we have now a very large population of voters, who expects free-stuff. Whether the origin of the free-stuff is stolen from the rich or long-term juggling of government financial debt, is of little concern to the receivers. Free-stuff receivers are interested only in "now" and the very near future. They are not concerned with what may occur 20 years down the road, or with possible anticipation that the government and its rich suppliers will go bankrupt. Some few generations ago parents were concerned with the welfare of remaining children on the parents demise. That is no longer the case. Government has now convinced most of the general populace that it will take care of the "children" and parents need not be concerned. In fact, government will even take care of the parents as long as they are alive. While not everybody subscribes to this position, there are a sufficient number to radically affect voting. Much of the voting public will vote on the basis of candidates who promise to give something to the voters now as opposed to some long-term future benefit, and especially not concerning the "good of the country".    The above means to me that you are on the wrong track with respect to your philosophy and programs. I propose that if you continue with this, you will make some minor gains which may appear satisfactory to you, but in the final analysis you will fail and be voted out of office.
    However, I am not advocating that you also become a promoter of free-stuff in the traditional sense. I am advocating that you direct your sales program to the general public in a manner consistent with their anticipated desires. For example, you may want the IRS out of Obamacare enforcement, but what does this matter to the average free-stuff receiver? How does it affect his free healthcare from his employer, whether the IRS is involved or not. If you can't give a good reason for your position, he will vote simplistically, as he normally would in the next election. Similarly, with respect to government abuse involving excessive bureaucracy inhibiting employers, government bonuses, and lavish government conferences, the average free-stuff receiver has no interest. He knows that such things exist now and will continue in the future but sees no connection on how it affects his free-stuff, no matter what you do. Remember, the free-stuff receivers are voters. They will always vote for the candidates who will most likely continue to give them short-term benefits.

Government Shutdown Over Obamacare

Open email to Sen. Cornyn and Cruz (Texas):

Dear Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    Apparently there has been some discussion on shutting down the government over the issue of Obamacare. An associate of mine pointed out that last Saturday Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) announced that there would be no government shutdown over Obamacare.
    Good and an obvious move! A government shutdown would be disastrous for the Republican Party. The free-stuff and legitimate entitlement receivers, such as Social Security, pay close attention to their monthly checks or other forms of receipt for their benefits. A government shutdown would create strong animosity and when traced to the Republican Party would result in a heavy loss of Republican votes in forthcoming elections..
    My associate has another suggestion, which you may already be considering. That is, tie in an amendment to defund Obamacare onto any action to increase the national debt. The voting public generally does not pay attention to the national debt.

Deactivating Obamacare

    The Washington Times points out a difference of opinion on the part of two well-known Republicans concerning how best to deactivate Obamacare. Both seem to agree that Obamacare is disadvantageous, because it reduces individual responsibility and is financially destructive to the country.
    Sen. Cruz (Texas) takes the position that Obamacare should be defunded now before the mandates fully take place. He says that when the mandates take place, there will be so many benefits to the average person that it will be impossible to have the average person give up those benefits by repealing the law.
    Republican strategist Dick Morris prefers to have the full mandates go into effect, at which time the people will see the fallacies of the law and demand its repeal.
    It seems strange to me that in spite of benefits to the average person, a poll shows that most Americans now oppose Obamacare. Our society is loaded with free-stuff advocates. There are those in government, who offer free-stuff in exchange for votes to keep them in power, and there are those persons who like the free-stuff without thought of any other costs. On average, the free-stuff philosophy to maintain power and establish further control over the population has gained ground over the past 50 years, compared to the ideology of what may be good for the country.
    In view of that, I am a supporter of Sen. Cruz's position. The free-stuff majority will control the votes, and if they get a taste of the free-stuff mandates in Obamacare, it will be impossible to convince them to give those up in favor of the good of the country. In other words try to avoid the populace getting hooked on the "heroin content" of Obamacare.
    The problem with Dick Morris' suggestion is that the free-stuff populace will get hooked on the "heroin content" of Obamacare, and will not want to give that up. Since the free-stuff block will control the votes on reelection of Congress, those Congressional members up for reelection will be in no position to try to do what is good for the country. They will be interested essentially in maintaining their jobs and their power and will make no effort to repeal Obamacare.

Constitutional Rights and Gov. Christie Unveiled

    The Washington Times covers a debate between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and US Sen. Rand Paul.
    Gov. Christie speaks negatively about a libertarian strain coursing through political parties, presumably both Democratic and Republican.
    Sen. Paul says that Gov. Christie worries about the dangers of freedom, while he worries about the danger of losing that freedom.

    Both indirectly refer to the National Security Agency's (NSA) program of collecting telephone records for all citizens of the US. Gov. Christie takes a position that this is quite acceptable in the context of protecting citizens from terrorism. Sen. Paul takes a position that this is unconstitutional with respect to government seizure of citizens property [records] without warrant as required by the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
    I take the position of Sen. Paul, but I go further. The federal government is obliged to protect its citizens from possible terrorist activities. However, such responsibility and subsequent implementation of procedures should not be so all-encompassing as to unnecessarily impose on the liberties of the average citizen. In other words, there should be some suspicion of wrongdoing, before a citizen's records can be seized. The collection of millions/billions of phone records does not fill that bill. In addition, it is obviously impractical. There are no cases where a potential terrorist was discovered by the scanning of these million/billions of telephone records. It is suspected by many, including the writer that the collection of such information by the federal government is a deceptive maneuver to obtain better control of the population. The federal government is supposed to be working for the citizens of the US. However, many in the government feel that this is an unjust position and desire to reverse it. Collection of citizen private information is a first step in reversing that control.
    A note on Gov. Christie. He came to the public eye as an illogical Republican governor in the Democratic state of New Jersey. Republicans lauded that change, with the expectation that perhaps the state of New Jersey would be returning to Republican control. Subsequent action by Gov. Christie, including kowtowing to Pres. Obama during the recent Hurricane Sandy disaster, clearly indicates that Gov. Christie is actually a Democrat/Socialist parading as a Republican.

Sen. Cruz (Sen. Cruz (Texas) onLegalized Voting, Obamacare, and Presidential Appointments

Open email to Sen. Cruz (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    I have read your Newsletter and have the following comments:

Legalized Voting    You said that the federal Motor Voter law -- the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 does not require persons to present concrete evidence of citizenship before they are allowed to register to vote. When the state of Arizona tried to establish such a provision for concrete evidence on voting, the Supreme Court struck it down, on the basis that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 was the controlling law.
    This leaves an opening for illegal immigrants to vote, and you are taking steps to fix the law. Good luck!. You will have the usual gang of Democrats to oppose your position. Those Democrats desire to have illegal immigrants engage in voting, because they anticipate that most of the illegals will vote Democratic.

Obamacare    It is the law of the land; inappropriately foisted off on the American public by an ignorant Congress and a socialist President. Since its passage, both Congress and the public are starting to realize not only the inappropriateness of the law but the dire consequences of its application.
    With the Democratic Senate and a socialist President, the chances of having this law repealed are remote. However you and others have decided that you could make it ineffective, if you deny funding. I strongly encourage you to continue these efforts.

New Sec. of Labor
    President Obama nominated Thomas Perez as Secretary of Labor. In an act of conciliation to Harry Reid's blackmail to remove filibustering as a Senator option, the Senate confirmed Thomas Perez. You voted against the confirmation, for which I thank you. You are obviously not responsible for the weasel attitude of the majority of the Senate, but it is apparent that you are doing your best to at least bring to its attention what it should be doing, if it had the basic interests of the country at heart. I hope you are successful in ultimately educating your Associates to properly perform the duties for which they have been elected.

Filling Judicial Vacancies     President Obama appoints federal judges to fill judicial vacancies. He decides on the basis of recommendations from his staff. With the present Democratic/Socialistic influence of the staff, Pres. Obama's judicial appointments are usually contradictory to the stability and development of the country.
    As I understand it, you and Sen. Cornyn have established a program of developing a set of candidates, which you will then offer to the President for his choice in subsequent judicial appointments. It seems less than an ideal system, but better than nothing. At least, you are trying to have some positive effect.

Right of Privacy Versus Terrorism

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer (Texas):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    The House just voted NOT to reduce funding for the National Security Agency (NSA), which has been invading the privacy of the average citizen by confiscating his telephone records. Presumably, the basis for support of the NSA program is that it protects the public from terrorist activities.
    I have great difficulty in seeing the connection between collecting telephone records of the average citizen and identifying potential terrorists. There is no doubt that a telephone record on a specific person of suspicion can be very revealing concerning the likelihood of his future activities, but one does not find persons of suspicion by collecting millions or billions of standard telephone records. Law enforcement people find suspicious characters from leads given by the general public, foreign governments (such as the Russian information concerning the Boston bombers), Interpol, and the traditional methods of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which uses spies, drones, double agents, etc. If a potential terrorist has ever been identified by use of millions/billions of telephone records, I would like to hear about it.
    Relating discovery of terrorists to a database involving telephone records of all US citizens is a ridiculous concept. Once again, the House has voted for something out of complete ignorance. May I remind you of Obamacare?
    How did you vote on this NSA matter?

How to Control Immigration

How to Control Immigration

    The Washington Time says, "Homeland Security: No one home at the top; mounting vacancies to affect immigration laws". The Times goes on to say that Homeland Security is the largest US government agency, with an annual budget of $59 billion. There are 240,000 employees. Four of the top jobs have been vacant since late last year, and one position — inspector general — has been vacant for 2 years. There are now 14 vacancies in key positions, not counting John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who leaves at the end of this month, and Secretary Janet A. Napolitano, who departs in September.
    Why is this?
    The answer is simple.
    Congress passes bills but for the bills to become law, the President must sign. If the bill seems to have popular public support, the President is pretty much compelled to sign in spite of his personal feelings. The new law is then placed in the hands of one of the existing government agencies for enforcement. However, the President is administrator of all government departments, and in spite of his signature on a law, he has the option of indirectly not enforcing the law by denying nominations to leadership positions. Left without leadership, the existing agency employees are uncertain concerning their future with any subsequent leader, who may be appointed. They then do little of any significance, in order to not jeopardize their positions.
    In the case of Homeland Security, Pres. Obama is concerned primarily with the immigration aspects. Since he was raised in various foreign countries, he has no innate allegiance to America. He believes in worldwide government, without country boundaries, and therefore no control on the movement of people from one area of the world to another.
    As Congress passes an immigration bill, it will contain some controls on immigration, in spite of all Democratic efforts to not include controls. The public is generally favorable to immigration control, and Pres. Obama will be forced to sign the bill into law. However, he then has the option of not enforcing the law by denying leadership in the controlling Department of Homeland Security. He has been preparing for this eventuality by avoiding nomination of individuals to key Homeland Security positions.

Rep.Neugebauer (Texas) on Military/ Housing Funding and Fracking

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer (Texas):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your newsletter and have the following comments:    

Military    The proposed bill includes $512 billion in non-war defense funding and $85 billion for war funding.
    Too much! Too much!
    By the Constitution, the federal government is charged with the responsibility of protecting citizens from invasion by foreign forces. If there is an invasion, that is war. Since we have no invasion, we don't need to spend $85 billion on wars for nation building.
    More than a half billion dollars for standing defense involving personnel and equipment is ridiculous. With the development of technology, including drones, atomic weapons, and other miscellaneous advances, we don't need a large force of soldiers, sailors, marines, and flyers. That personnel is needed for occupation of a foreign country, or our defense on invasion. Since neither of those is applicable at present, cut those personnel to basic containment levels, with the option of increase through volunteering or drafting, as may be subsequently required to repel an invading force.

Housing    My position on this is simple and clear. Get out of the housing business! Shut down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and forget the idea of trying to get people into housing that they can't afford. We have a well-established market for housing and financing thereof, and we don't need the federal government's meddling.

Fracking    I agree completely with your position on use of this technology to increase production of oil and natural gas. There has been enough environmental study to show that it it does not cause environmental problems. If anything later develops, we can handle it at that time. Meanwhile, we need you to fight the Administration in its efforts to reduce production of carbon containing fuels, which we sorely need at low cost.

Chemical Safety Board Facilities

Open email to Sen. Boxer (California):

Dear Sen. Boxer,
    I am sending this to you, because you are the Chair Lady of the Senate Committee that oversees the activities of the Chemical Safety Board (CSB).
    For those persons who also read this email and who may not be familiar with the Chemical Safety Board, I am including a short description of its activities. The Chemical Safety Board is an advisory government agency. Its job is to investigate industrial chemical accidents and make recommendations to other agencies, including OSHA and the EPA to establish controls, so that those accidents are not repeated. A typical industrial chemical accident is the ammonium nitrate explosion at West, Texas. I have followed CSB activities for some years and am convinced that they do good work.
    More recently, there have been various complaints that the CSB is far behind in its schedule to investigate chemical industry accidents. The data seem to confirm the validity of this complaint.
    However, Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso and Managing Director Daniel Horowitz say the Board, which has a $10.55 million annual budget, is stretched thin and must decide which of the 200 or so “high-consequence” accidents that take place in the United States each year merit its attention. The number of chemical industrial accidents has also increased, because of the increasing activity involving new plants and reconstruction, based on the new natural gas fracking.. Horowitz says, “We’ve asked for a Houston office. We’ve asked for additional investigators for many years".
Sen. Boxer, I am one of the first to normally recommend reducing government expenses, in view of our overextended federal budget and increasing national debt, but some things are significant with respect to the general economy. This is one. Chemical industrial accidents immediately reduce productivity and increase unemployment, which is contrary to our desires for economic improvement.
I strongly suggest you work with Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso and Managing Director Daniel Horowitz to supply the CSB with the funding it needs for the number of investigators necessary for the Board to do its job.
As a side issue, I have noticed that Managing Director Horowitz also complains that when the Board makes recommendations after an accident investigation, OSHA and the EPA either ignore or are slow to accept these recommendations in developing and applying control regulations to avoid accident repetition.

Rabble-Rousers

     What is a rabble-rouser? Why do I want to talk about rabble-rousers?
    A rabble-rouser is simply a person who tries to stir up masses of people for action by appealing to their emotions rather than their reason. Rabble
    The first part of the term rabble-rouser is significant, because it describes the kind of people that the rabble-rouser affects. In this case, rabble means a group of people who have little education in logic and tend to deal more on emotions. Such emotions are generally hate, feelings of injustice, grudges, and the like. The picture then is a person with good voice standing on a soapbox in a crowd surrounded by people whose emotional mindset is favorable to the issues being described by the speaker. If one needs a clearer picture, look at some of the old issues of the TV series Gunsmoke and find those where somebody is inciting riot in a crowd. Usually that incitement involves breaking into a jail and hanging the supposed criminal without due process of law. It is a highly emotional situation and most times the examples show that the riot crowd has made an incorrect judgment based not only on law but also based on the moral aspects of the situation.
I am writing about rabble-rousers, because they are important, primarily from the damage that they can do to a society. For example, if a Gunsmoke mob hangs a supposed criminal and that person is later found to be innocent, there is a strong aftermath of regret and guilt which unsettles the community. This could be exacerbated by subsequent criminal charges against some of the rioters, all of which is destructive to the moral tranquility of the society.
In the case of the Zimmerman trial, George Zimmerman was found innocent of murder by a Florida jury. In that extensive trial, there was no indication of any kind of racial bias.
Subsequently, various rabble-rousers have addressed the general public to connect the Zimmerman situation with racial overtones. These addresses have appealed specifically to the poorly educated, highly emotional motivated individuals of the black community. The result is that we have seen some rioting of various sorts with the destruction of property and attacks on some whites by black rioters. This has occurred because of the effectiveness of the rabble-rousers. If the trial had been left to its own normal interpretation of satisfying the requirements of law, there would have been no subsequent reaction of this sort.
In the case of the Zimmerman trial, who were the rabble-rousers? In this case, they appear to all have been blacks, with their motivations likely stemming from long perceived feelings of injustice. The starters were likely Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This created a sort of general feeling of unrest in the rabble black community.
More significantly, the unrest was later exacerbated by Eric Holder, the US Atty. General. With the general black rabble unrest at a low level, Eric holder used this as an excuse to come on television, ostensibly with the purpose of calming the black rabble by assuring them that the United States government would be investigating the Zimmerman situation more closely to determine whether there was some racial injustification. He could have done that in a few words and made his point very clearly, but he did not. He spoke at great length, as does the normal rabble-rouser on the soapbox and has actually further inflamed the rabble of the black community.
Today, the rabble of the black community was further inflamed by Pres. Obama. He may have had intention of calming the community, but he failed miserably, essentially because he spoke at great length in a rabble rousing manner. He mentioned the supposed social injustice of white people holding their purses closer to them when black people were with them in an elevator, or hearing the click of car doors being locked as black persons walked by in stopped automobile traffic. Why did he mention these riot-inciting examples? The likelihood is that he himself is not a completely rational person dedicated to the rule of law and the advancement of all Americans, no matter what their race color or creed. He has given us a perfect example of a rabble person inciting riot in a similar rabble group.
I can feel sorry for Pres. Obama in his feeling of insufficiency as a black person, but I cannot excuse him nor Atty. Gen. Holder for their reverting to emotional riot inciting rhetoric which does damage to this great country. We are Americans. We do not have to hear about color, previous injustices and the like. We need a positive approach of all Americans being equal in moving ahead to solve some of the other problems which we now face.

Rabble-Rousers

    What is a rabble-rouser? Why do I want to talk about rabble-rousers?
    A rabble-rouser is simply a person who tries to stir up masses of people for action by appealing to their emotions rather than their reason. Rabble
    The first part of the term rabble-rouser is significant, but did because it describes the kind of people that the rabble-rouser affects. In this case, rabble means a group of people who have little education in logic and tend to deal more on emotions. Such emotions are generally hate, feelings of injustice, grudges, and the like. The picture then is a person with good voice standing on a soapbox in a crowd surrounded by people whose emotional mindset is favorable to the issues being described by the speaker. If one needs a clearer picture, look at some of the old issues of the TV series Gunsmoke and find those where somebody is inciting riot in a crowd. Usually that incitement involves breaking into a jail and hanging the supposed criminal without due process of law. It is a highly emotional situation and most times the examples show that the riot crowd has made an incorrect judgment based not only on law but also based on the moral aspects of the situation.
I am writing about rabble-rousers, because they are important, primarily from the damage that they can do to a society. For example, if a Gunsmoke mob hangs a supposed criminal and that person is later found to be innocent, there is a strong aftermath of regret and guilt which unsettles the community. This could be exacerbated by subsequent criminal charges against some of the rioters, all of which is destructive to the moral tranquility of the society.
In the case of the Zimmerman trial, George Zimmerman was found innocent of murder by a Florida jury. In that extensive trial, there was no indication of any kind of racial bias.
Subsequently, various rabble-rousers have addressed the general public to connect the Zimmerman situation with racial overtones. These addresses have appealed specifically to the poorly educated, highly emotional motivated individuals of the black community. The result is that we have seen some rioting of various sorts with the destruction of property and attacks on some whites by black rioters. This has occurred because of the effectiveness of the rabble-rousers. If the trial had been left to its own normal interpretation of satisfying the requirements of law, there would have been no subsequent reaction of this sort.
In the case of the Zimmerman trial, who were the rabble-rousers? In this case, they appear to all have been blacks, with their motivations likely stemming from long perceived feelings of injustice. The starters were likely Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This created a sort of general feeling of unrest in the rabble black community.
More significantly, the unrest was later exacerbated by Eric Holder, the US Atty. General. With the general black rabble unrest at a low level, Eric holder used this as an excuse to come on television, ostensibly with the purpose of calming the black rabble by assuring them that the United States government would be investigating the Zimmerman situation more closely to determine whether there was some racial injustification. He could have done that in a few words and made his point very clearly, but he did not. He spoke at great length, as does the normal rabble-rouser on the soapbox and has actually further inflamed the rabble of the black community.
Today, the rabble of the black community was further inflamed by Pres. Obama. He may have had intention of calming the community, but he failed miserably, essentially because he spoke at great length in a rabble rousing manner. He mentioned the supposed social injustice of white people holding their purses closer to them when black people were with them in an elevator, or hearing the click of car doors being locked as black persons walked by in stopped automobile traffic. Why did he mention these riot-inciting examples? The likelihood is that he himself is not a completely rational person dedicated to the rule of law and the advancement of all Americans, no matter what their race color or creed. He has given us a perfect example of a rabble person inciting riot in a similar rabble group.
I can feel sorry for Pres. Obama in his feeling of insufficiency as a black person, but I cannot excuse him nor Atty. Gen. Holder for their reverting to emotional riot inciting rhetoric which does damage to this great country. We are Americans. We do not have to hear about color, previous injustices and the like. We need a positive approach of all Americans being equal in moving ahead to solve some of the other problems which we now face.

Rep. .Neugebauer on Housing

Open email to Rep Neugebauer (Texas):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    Your newsletter was devoted only to housing, and I have read it.
     You wanted to hear how my family has personally been affected by failed government housing policies. You want to hear because you say that buying a home I can afford to keep in America shouldn’t be an exercise in navigating the federal bureaucracy. You also say that House Republicans have a housing finance plan that’s sustainable for homeowners, respectful of hard-working taxpayers, and built to last.
    I have personally had no difficulty with government policies. I have had mortgages in the past, which did not constitute any significant problem. More recently, I served as Power Of Attorney for one of my sons on a mortgage, and I was impressed by the tremendous number of documents which had to be signed. That was a real inconvenience, although I did not get writer's cramp. It was what I call a minor annoyance typical of any government involvement and probably would continue as a part of what you will currently propose.
    On a more abstract basis, I am well aware of the tremendous amount of debt which is being accumulated by the taxpayer in handling housing problems, particularly with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I see that you now are trying to address that problem.
    You say we have the following problems:
    Today, taxpayers have paid nearly $200 billion for the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – the biggest bailout in history.
Today, taxpayers remain on the hook for $5.1 trillion in mortgage guarantees. That’s roughly one-third of our entire economy.
Today, our government supports 90 percent of new mortgage originations. That’s simply unsustainable.
Today, Washington elites decide who can qualify for a home mortgage – putting the goal of homeownership out of reach for millions of credit-worthy American families. That’s not fair.
Today, the unprecedented level of government control and distortion of our housing markets has produced a declining homeownership rate combined with a staggering foreclosure rate.

For me, the answer is quite simple. Government should get out of the housing business. The private financial markets can easily handle all of these situations. It's not up to government to involve themselves in social engineering to put people into their own houses when those people cannot afford to handle to handle the loans.
However it will take action on your part to get the government out of the housing business. You will have to close down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There is nothing much you can do about the $5.1 trillion in government mortgage guarantees. Since you have made that commitment, you cannot morally rescind it. Stop completely supporting new mortgage originations. Stop anyone from government to deciding who can or cannot qualify for a home mortgage. Use minimal controls on banks and other lending institutions. If there is a declining homeownership rate, so be it. People should not be buying more than they can afford.

House Speaker Boehner on Obamacare and College Loans

Open email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,    I have read your newsletter.

Obamacare    You are pretty much on target here in continuing to fight against this law in every way possible. I like your approach in relating mandate postponements to individuals, as well as to companies.

Making College More Affordable    You continue to miss the main point here. College has been oversold to the American public. The overselling has led to exorbitant college price increases and accompanying accumulation of tremendous student loan debt. All of this, without real prospect of jobs to pay off loans.
    With your program to reduce student loan interest rates and continue government grants of taxpayer funds to students and universities, you are exacerbating the situation.
    While low student loan rates and government grants of taxpayer funds may help in your gaining some younger votes, you are doing a disastrous service to those same people, with their accumulation of debt and inability to repay. In the final analysis, perhaps you are thinking that government will forgo the debts and it will all fall again on the taxpayers. If so, that would be the usual thought process of a Socialist/Democrat. I hope I can think better of you.

Forfeiture of Second Amendment Gun Rights to the United Nations

    The United Nations, of which we are a member, has drafted a treaty called the "UN Arms Trade Treaty". The treaty calls for the eradication of small arms trade, sale, and transfer by anyone other than UN approved governments. Any country, which is a party to this Treaty, will be part of the UN program to eradicate all small arms trading on a worldwide basis. If the US is a party to this Treaty, US citizens will be unable to purchase firearms. In effect, the Second Amendment rights of a US citizen will disappear. Those rights will then be controlled by the United Nations, rather than the U.S. Constitution.
    On Monday, June 3, 2013, there was a general country signing of the Treaty at UN headquarters in New York. Sixty seven countries, including Great Britain, signed the treaty. US Secretary of State John Kerry said that he would sign as soon as he was able to work out the paperwork, but so far he has not signed. Two days earlier, on Saturday, June 1, the Senate voted before dawn to not sign the treaty. In addition to the subterfuge of the predawn voting, the vote was disguised as an Amendment to the Budget..
    So far so good, but in the disguised Senate vote, it failed to pass by only eight votes (46 for vs 53 against). In other words, by a matter of only eight votes in the Senate, you were on your way to giving up your Second Amendment gun rights. Another way to look at it is that there is a substantial number of US Senate members that are willing to scrap the US Constitution and govern according to United Nation rules.
    There are two ways to look at this difference of opinion.
    One way is that the United States Constitution and its previous history relating to that Constitution is completely outmoded and should be replaced by government according to United Nations rules.
    The second way to look at it is to view this as a subversion of our basic form of government, including its history of success on a worldwide basis.
    I am a strong proponent of this second point of view, which means to me that we have to make every effort to remove from our present government staff all persons who are obviously trying to overthrow it. I claim these persons to be enemies of the US and must be unseated from their present positions. While I would like to prosecute them as enemy agents, it would be against my principles of freedom of speech and liberty in general as guaranteed by the Constitution. During the 30s, a Sen. McCarthy went on a rampage to uncover all communistic influences in our government and society in general. He was reasonably effective and subsequently through the years developed a bad name for his success. His concern is now back, with a vengeance, and we need to do something about it.
    An associate has prepared a list of the Senators who voted to forfeit our Second Amendment gun rights to the United Nations. I have not checked these individually, but they are likely correct. They are as follows:

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
They are subversives or traitors to the US and must be voted out of office.

Sen. Cruz on Immigration, Obamacare, Court Judges,and Presidential Appointments

Open email to Sen. Cruz (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    I have read your newsletter.

Immigration Bill
    You said, “One of the most egregious aspects of the Gang of Eight bill [Senate Immigration] is its intersection with Obamacare, which penalizes businesses that hire a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident over an illegal immigrant".
    I'm glad you picked that up. However this is only one aspect of several ridiculous portions of the Senate immigration bill. The favorable aspect is that the House leadership said that they would start from a completely different viewpoint. I don't know what you can do with Senate members. I suppose the basic problem with the so-called Democrats is how deeply they are convinced of the need for, socialism/communism tied into big government. I can only encourage you to keep pounding the drum for small government and free markets.

Obamacare    You said, "Obamacare harms economic growth, disrupts the doctor-patient relationship and tramples on our liberties. But it doesn't end there. We must guarantee that American taxpayers do not spend one more dime to implement Obamacare". You followed up on that by introducing a bill to permanently defund the law.
    Congratulations for your approach, but I'm a bit surprised. I thought that all funding matters should be originating from the House. I'm glad to see that you are using innovative procedures and techniques to accomplish your purposes, which are consistent with the benefits to the country and its people.

Packing the Washington DC Circuit Court    The court, as presently constituted, does not judge favorably on many of Pres. Obama's cases. The president wants to change the composition of the court so that the judges will decide more favorably to his desires.
    You are opposed to that meddling, and I appreciate your bringing it to public attention. I'm not sure what you can do about it, but you have accomplished the first step which is at least to recognize the danger.

Senate Approval of Pres. Obama's Nominees    Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano has resigned. Excellent! She is a poor administrator.
    The Senate also approved four of Pres. Obama's nominees, which it previously questioned. The approval was granted as a blackmail payment with Harry Reid's threat to apply a vote against Senate filibustering. I previously recommended that the Senate Republicans face the filibuster threat, by not agreeing to the blackmail payment, but that went unheeded.
    As long as the Senate agrees to be blackmailed by the filibuster issue, you and the Senate will not have a meaningful role in confirming the next DHS Secretary and that the President's nominee will be dedicated to actually enforcing the law as written, rather than catering to the political agenda of the White House.

    One positive note is that the blackmail situation is still on the table, and Senate Republicans can vote at any time to not approve of a Pres. Obama nominee and then face the music of seeing what happens in a Senate vote to remove filibustering. It's not a foregone conclusion that such vote will pass, because many Senate Democrats recognize they may also need the filibustering option in future business.

 

Rep.Neugebauer (Texas) on Farm, Housing, and Obamacare

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer (Texas):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I read your newsletter.

Farm Bill    You said, "Last week, The House decided to split the farm support programs from the nutrition programs.  We passed H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act of 2013, by a vote of 216-208.   This bill saves taxpayers nearly $14 billion over the next ten years and improves efficiency by consolidating more than 100 programs.  It also moves to a much more market-oriented framework for agricultural support and ends direct payments.  In their place, we strengthened crop insurance where farmers pay premiums to insure their crops and get support in the years that they suffer losses".
    It looks like you are moving in the right direction but not quickly enough. Separating farm support programs from nutrition programs is a positive, but the federal taxpayers should not be giving farmers economic support. Farmers are in business to produce a product, which they sell on the open market. All costs, including disaster costs, are a total part of their cost of doing business, and their products should be priced accordingly.
    Saving $14 billion over 10 years sounds favorable, but I would be more impressed with how much we save each year. More importantly, how much are we still spending of taxpayer money, which should be part of market structure? If we are moving to a much more market-oriented framework for agricultural support and ending direct payments, why do we have any cost to the taxpayers in all?
    Presumably the answer to the previous question may lie in part to your statement that farmers get support for the years that they suffer losses. I thought that that's what they were carrying insurance for and that farmers would be paying premiums for same.
    All in all, I think we're making progress, but I still see on your part an attitude that we have to help farmers. That's wrong. Farmers are independent businessmen and need to help themselves. Your job is to see that everything moves to open market considerations, without taxpayer expense. That may lead to higher food costs in the retail market, but that is realization and facing the facts of life, as opposed to hiding such information in the folds of grand government.
Housing    You have explained ay great length the problems of the housing market and particularly as exacerbated by government involvement.
    You are right on target!
    Your bill (PATH) proposes phasing out Fannie and Freddie over five years and require FHA to use sound business practices and scale back to its original mission of helping first-time and low-income homebuyers.  The PATH Act would increase competition, enhance transparency, and maximize consumer choice.
    While I agree with most of your PATH proposals, I disagree with scaling back to the original mission of helping first-time and low income homebuyers. Helping first-time and low income homebuyers, with taxpayer funds, is an interference in commercial markets, which can readily handle the situation. There is no need to be spending taxpayer money on such a program.
Obamacare     You said that the House is considering delaying both the employer and employee mandates of the law by a year. The two mandates require both the employer and the employee to purchase health insurance. You are considering the year delay to give more time for Congress to work on repealing this broken law and passing solutions that work for you and your family.
    You are right on target with respect to repealing Obamacare! However, I take strong exception to your second part, which involves "passing solutions that work for you and your family". Government has no business being involved in any kind of health program for the general public. The general public is educated enough to be able to handle its own health problems, through direct payments or insurance for any healthcare services they receive. For those who are destitute and require medical treatment, there are free clinics, and some allowance could be made in the welfare budget for minor support, if required.

The Price of Blackmail

Open email to Sen. Republicans:

Dear Senate Republicans,
    The Washington Time says, "Bowing to an ultimatum, Senate Republicans agreed Tuesday to drop objections to key Obama administration nominees, delivering a victory to Senate Democrats who said they will shelve — for now — their own plans to change the rules and curtail filibusters".
    In accepting Pres. Obama's nominees, to which you have had previous objections, you have agreed to be blackmailed. Your agreement is your first payment in the this blackmail operation. Note that Senate Democrats will shelve only for now their plans to curtail filibustering. In other words, they still have the blackmail weapon and will continue to use it against you.
    I previously warned you that this would happen. Apparently you don't understand blackmail.

Sen. Cornyn's (Texas) Newsletter on Healthcare

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Your latest newsletter letter says that Obamacare [healthcare] is broken even before it begins. You then go on to give five principles by which you believe health care could be reformed.
    I am repeating below your five principles and including my own comments in red.
      
    1.) We must make health care more affordable by addressing the rapidly rising cost of health care. It is not an absolute requirement, but it would be desirable.    Health care consumers should have better access to price and quality data in order to make cost-conscious and prudent decisions about their care. Consumers don't need cost information, since healthcare is free by Obamacare edict. Consumers are also not concerned about quality, since they have been told they can retain their present supplier, in which you already have confidence. Health care providers could post their direct pay prices for their most common procedures. Consumers are not interested. Government pays.    Medicare, Medicaid, and other data could be made available to third party entities more adept at providing meaningful quality comparisons than the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Not necessary; see above. Reforms, such as allowing for additional pooling mechanisms and the selling of insurance across state lines, would put downward pressure on premium costs.  In addition, leveling the tax field for those in the individual and employer markets would help individuals trying to purchase insurance on their own. Consumers are not interested in putting downward pressure on premium costs. The consumer doesn't pay. Government pays. The consumer is not interested in purchasing insurance on his own. Government prohibits it, and government pays.
    2.) Individuals need more choices and the ability to select plans that best fit their needs. Obama says the consumer can retain his present supplier. He has already selected a plan which best fits his needs. Reforms should be made to allow employers to design wellness programs with rewards available that cover a higher percentage of the cost of an employee’s coverage. Why bother with this. The consumer already has his reward with free health care. These programs incentivize individuals to take control of their health while also lowering their out of pocket health care costs. You can't lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs, if it's already free. The list of permissible uses for tax-free health savings account dollars should be expanded.  In addition, individuals should be able to roll over from year-to-year a portion of their unused dollars in flexible spending accounts. Too complex for the average person. He already has free health care. The government should not impose a long list of mandates on insurance companies that make plans unnecessarily expensive.  For instance, not all individuals need to purchase coverage for maternity care or pediatric dental and vision services.  Individuals should be allowed to purchase the specific coverage that meets their needs. The consumer doesn't care about this. He already has free health care. Reforms should be made to provide for increased access to lower cost insurance. For the consumer, you can't get a lower cost than zero. We should ensure that our laws encourage individuals and businesses to pool together (i.e., through association health plans and individual membership accounts) in order to purchase insurance in the individual market. For the consumer, the government handles all this.
    3.) We must ensure individuals have access to health insurance including those with pre-existing conditions. The consumer already has it in Obamacare. The tax treatment of health care in the individual and employer market should be aligned.
Individuals seeking to purchase insurance through the individual market are currently disadvantaged as they do not receive a tax benefit for the purchase of insurance. Individuals can't purchase private insurance. It's prohibited by Obamacare, and Obamacare is free. Those purchasing insurance in the individual market should be eligible for a similar tax benefit. Consumers can't purchase. Reforms could be made so that individuals with pre-existing conditions are able to purchase affordable coverage. Why reform? The consumer already has pre-existing coverage with Obamacare. For instance, changes could be made to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 so that individuals with pre-existing conditions moving from employer-sponsored coverage to the individual market are protected and can find coverage. Consumers find that unnecessary. They already have pre-existing coverage. Another option would be to support state high-risk pools. Consumers don't need more options. Consumers should be able to purchase insurance across state lines.  Currently, state mandates requiring coverage of specific benefits range from a low of 13 to a high of 70. Individuals should be able to purchase lower cost plans that meet their specific health needs. Why do all this? The government already has it set up for the consumer to get free health care.    4.) We must protect the doctor-patient relationship.  Decisions about care should be left to doctors, patients, and their families.  We should increase the quality of care by instituting physician-developed quality measures.
Physicians know best when it comes to treating their patients.  We should ensure that regulations do not get in the way of patient care.
Currently, physicians must participate in a myriad of government reporting programs that limit the amount of time they can spend with patients and do little to increase the actual quality of care.  We should institute physician-developed quality measures and provide real-time feedback to physicians in order to enhance the patient experience and produce better outcomes. All unnecessary. Obama has guaranteed you can keep your present Dr.; it will all be free' and if there is any government red tape, it will only  be minor.    5.) We Must Save Medicare. Why? With Medicare I have to pay 20% of the approved Medicare amount. With Obamacare, I will not pay anything. The current Medicare structure incentivizes quantity over quality and the program’s price controls distort the entire health care market.  Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, private plans should be able to compete against traditional Medicare.  Private plans have already been very successful in the Part D prescription drug program.  A national survey released in October 2012 finds that 9 out of 10 seniors are satisfied with their Medicare prescription drug plan.  Similar reforms could be made to Parts A and B of Medicare (the portions covering hospital and physician care) that would provide beneficiaries with greater plan choice. All too complex for the average consumer. Obamacare says government will take care of everything, and it will be free. Under premium support, individuals would be able to choose between these private plans and Medicare.  If an individual selected a cheaper plan, he would retain the savings.  Beneficiaries interested in selecting a more expensive plan could elect to do so and pay the difference. Obamacare says the consumer does not have a choice. He must take Obamacare. Other suppliers are not a consideration, and they will be going out of business anywayThe premium support level should be set to ensure that health care inflation does not outpace the amount of premium support provided to individuals. Healthcare inflation does not affect the consumer. He's not paying anything. Healthcare inflation is a government problem, and it should take care of it. Reforms could also include an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, changes to the rules for supplemental insurance coverage, and means testing for premiums and cost-sharing. Who cares about Medicare eligibility age? It will be replaced by free Obamacare at any age. Similarly, means testing for premiums and cost-sharing are no consequence.
Senator,
    I see you have spent a lot of time in preparing the above recipe. You have obviously done so on the basis that you consider Obamacare to be dead but that we still have need for a governmental approach to health care. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and you are whistling in the dark. Obamacare is the law of the land and you will need to do something to change it. Unless you do something, Obamacare will will remain as it is, no matter whether 50, 60 or 70% of the people disapprove of it. However, the average low-information voter will certainly look at each of these items in the same way as I have indicated above in red. Obamacare is free, and we have been guaranteed quality by maintaining our present Dr. That's a strong sales pitch, and it really is surprising to me that in spite of that wonderful pie-in-the-sky promise so many people actually appear to be against it.
    However, the bottom line of my suggestion is that you put your five-item recipe on hold and devote every ounce of energy you have to repealing Obamacare. After you are successful in that endeavor, I then suggest you scrap your five item recipe, and let the healthcare and insurance markets take care of the situation. The consumer will decide what is best for himself. He may not want insurance and will pay out-of-pocket for services rendered, which he will purchase on a cost/quality basis, as he does everything else. Some people may be so financially destitute that they cannot afford to pay for medical attention. They then don't need healthcare, they need medical help, and free clinics are available. These are generally financially supported by private grants, or free services from doctors, or in some cases, there is justifiable government support, as we normally consider welfare. Quality may not be optimal, nor should it be. The public always needs incentive to obtain more and better quality products and services, and it is well aware that this can be accomplished by increasing its access to money. They can do that through their own efforts of work and imagination, which will build strength within them as individuals, rather than weakening them through Obamacare or your replacement of a five/item recipe..

Good Riddance to Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano

     The Washington Times reports that Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will resign from her current post and will become President of the University of California. The Times says that she leaves the Secretary post with a "trail of successes".    I don't know what successes she has had. As far as I am concerned, she has been a complete bust in her last job.
    On July 6, I wrote about government deficiencies regarding the West, Texas explosion of ammonium nitrate, which basically destroyed the town. In that write-up, I said, "Janet Napolitano is the Sec. of the Department of Homeland Security and the buck stops with her. CFATS has had six directors since its inception. With her poor record involving CFATS and and other deficiencies, which I'm sure you can find, it is apparent that Sec. Napolitano is a poor administrator. I call for her ouster".
    She is now out of Homeland Security. I am not so egotistical as to believe that I had anything to do with it directly, but who knows whether my writings have an indirect effect. More likely, logical members of Congress and perhaps a few clearheaded thinkers of the Obama Administration have come to the same conclusion. Either way, we have been successful in her removal. Let's hope that her replacement will have better administrative skills.
    I'm a little surprised at her new appointment as President of the University of California. While I have had little regard for some of the extreme positions that state has taken on environment and energy, my regard for the University of California was previously rather high. It is now significantly reduced. The only possible positive aspect is that in actual operation of the University system, the President may be a figurehead, rather than a true administrator.

Senate filibuster in Jeopardy II

Open email to Senators Cornyn and Cruz (Texas):

Dear Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    I have recently written an essay to the general public on the matter of Senate filibustering. You have received a copy.    The essence of the immediate problem is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to call for a Senate vote banning filibustering, if you do not immediately approve of Pres. Obama's seven nominees for various agency offices.
    While the Senate might now pass an anti-filibustering rule, which would be disadvantageous to the minority Republicans, in subsequent elections, the Democrats may find themselves as a minority in the Senate and would be denied the right to filibuster. The likelihood is that Harry Reid is looking for the banning of filibuster as an immediate aid to his program. However, other Democratic members of the Senate may have a more forward looking interest and might vote against the proposal to ban filibustering.    I strongly suggest that you call Harry Reid's hand and force him into a decision on calling for a Senate vote on banning filibustering.

Senate Filibuster Process in Jeopardy

 An interesting procedural situation has developed in the Senate.
    According to the Constitution, presidential appointments to various government agencies require the "advice and consent" of the Senate
    The President has recently proposed seven appointments. Some Senate members are opposed to one of more of these individuals for the proposed appointment. The Senate must resolve as a group whether to accept the president's nomination of each of these nominations.
    In the process of resolving the issue in the Senate, each senator has the right to filibuster, which means to give an extended speech for or against a proposed law, or in this case a nominated person. An example of filibustering is clearly shown in an old movie entitled, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington", with Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur. It should be noted that the process of filibustering only delays calling for a Senate vote, although the filibustering process may also change the minds of some of the senators and thus affect the outcome of the vote.
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he wants the Senate to approve all of Pres. Obama's seven nominees. He also says that if the Senate does not approve the seven nominees, he will call for a Senate vote to eliminate the process of filibustering, and that is likely to pass the Senate, because only 51 votes are needed, and he has the probability of 54 votes.
    Filibustering is a tool primarily used in the Senate by the minority party, in this case Republicans. With Senate Majority Leader Reid's ultimatum, the Republicans will be forced to give up their right to filibuster, unless they immediately accept the president's seven nominees.
    I consider filibustering a valuable part of congressional procedure, because it tends to bring out complete facts on a controversial issue, as opposed to some rote passage of a proposed law or person nomination for an agency position. However, it is a communication device and is still not an integral part of the voting procedure. For example, if the Obamacare law had been filibustered, it might not have passed muster, and we might not now have been burdened with that law.
    Conversely for the specific situation at hand, agreement to approve all of the seven presidential nominees is an automatic loss to the objectors. Even if the objectors were allowed to filibuster, they still might lose the vote on all seven.
    The bottom line is that the Senate could now pass an anti-filibustering rule, which would be disadvantageous to the minority Republicans. However, in subsequent elections, the Democrats may find themselves as a minority in the Senate and would be denied the right to filibuster. The likelihood is that Harry Reid is looking for the banning of filibuster as an immediate aid to his program. However, other Democratic members of the Senate may have a more forward looking interest and might vote against the proposal to ban filibustering.    I suggest that Senate Republicans call Harry Reid's hand and force him into a decision on whether he wants to call for a Senate vote on banning filibustering.

Misguided Futility Index of the Washington Times

    The Washington Times has a Futility Index, which it uses to judge the effectiveness of Congress. The four factors going into the calculation are time spent in session, number of pages compiled in the Congressional Record, number of bills passed and votes taken. The higher the number for each factor, the more effective each branch of Congress is judged to be.
    For an annual comparison, Six months into 2011, the House had been in session for 515 hours, had compiled 4,581 pages in the Congressional Record and had 14 bills signed into law. In 2012, the House had been in session for 452 hours, had amassed 4,657 pages of material in the Congressional Record and had 40 of its bills signed into law. For this year, there have been 380 hours in session, 4178 pages of material in the Congressional Record, and 11 bills enacted into law. The Washington times considers this a dismal record for the House.
    I adamantly take exception to the position of the Washington Times.
    All laws are inherently restrictive. They generally restrict the rights of the general public or show favoritism to selected groups, to the disadvantage of the remaining public. If we assume that Congress sees its job as passing laws, then the more time they spend in session the more likelihood that we will have new restrictive laws. Similarly, the greater the number of pages of material in the Congressional Record, the greater the complexity of our laws and the more restrictive they are to the general public. Lastly, the more bills enacted into law, the more restriction to the American public.
    However, Republican strategist Michael McKenna seems to be at least partially on the right track by saying that House Republicans seem to have learned over the previous two years, the futility of passing bills to cut spending, force more development of energy and cut taxes, only to have them stall in the divided Senate.
    The Times judgment of the better Congressional record in 2011 and 2012 is actually based on passage of restrictive laws favorable to the Democratic/socialistic philosophy. The slower action in 2013 seems to recognize that mistake and at least compensate partially for it.
    In summary, it is my opinion that the fewer restrictive laws and subsequent agency regulations coming from the federal government, the better for the economy and the freedom of the American people. If Congress wants to take any positive action, it should review and eliminate or modify existing laws, of which we already have too many. We also need to have the Washington Times take another look at how they are judging the health of the United States, rather than assuming that the more time Congress spends in developing new restrictive laws, the better for the American public.

Another Futile Bureaocratic Way of Developing the Econmy

There is another bit of information from the April 4th issue of C&E News. It reports on another bureaucratic boondoggle.
The Department of Commerce is in its second year of a grant program, with the usual tricky government name of "i6 Challenge". The intent is to foster development of a new technology or product into a commercial success. The DOC has apparently never heard of research and development departments of large corporations or Investment bankers for small entrepreneurs. Or perhaps, it has invented a new way to waste taxpayer funds.
The sub-department handling this boondoggle project is the Economic Development Administration (EDA) It manages a multi-agency group to promote Pres. Obama's "Startup American innovation to promote job creation through US [pie in the sky] innovation".
Funding for this year's Challenge is $12.3 million, of which $6 million will come from the taxpayers through the DOC budget. The remaining funding of $6.3 million will come from the taxpayers through the cooperating agencies, which include the USDA, the EPA, DOE and the NSF. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Patent and Trademark Office P&TO) are also participating but are said to be using non-monetary ways. I suppose that means they are not giving out grant money, but that does not mean there is no cost to the tax payer. What about salaries & benefits, travel expenses, office cost, etc.? These are likely in addition to the usual expenses of running those organizations. NIST also has a similar Manufacturing Extension Program. Since the NIST is part of the Department of Commerce, there is double action and cost.
In this operation, taxpayer funds are awarded as grants to various entrepreneurs for certain projects to be pursued. These projects must presumably pass the muster of the various government departments, all of which have pie-in-the-sky attitudes and no real understanding of what is necessary in order to promote industry development and job formation in the United States.
One may ask why I am concerned about a piddling $6.3 million government expense. However, consider that there is likely a thousand similar operations in our bloated government. We are then talking about $6+ billion dollars, which "ain't hay"
I again suggest that government should get out of such things and get on with their major responsibilities, such as "providing for the common defense (both militarily and economically)".

Out Of Afghanistan

EIN News says, "U.S. President Obama Orders Rapid Drawdown of U.S. Troops From Afghanistan Citing success in the war against insurgents over the last two years, he calls for 33,000 'surge' troops to begin coming home, and says it's time for America to take a more 'pragmatic' approach to military intervention. (latimes.com)".

Great news! I guess all it takes is a desire to be reelected and the ability to listen to the American public.

We shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's not America's job to redesign countries. That's up to the Afghanis. If we later don't like their new government (or old government) posing a threat to the US, we defeat that threat by a head-on attack to the perpetrators, who are normally called terrorists. That attack need not involve ground forces. We kill terrorists with remote operations, such as missiles.

Pres. Obama has been talking recently about equalizing men's and women's wages. As I recall the discussion, the complaint seems to be that women receive on average only 70% of the wages received by men for the same jobs. The question is whether this wage difference is a discrimination based on sex or whether there are market forces at work. I propose that it is only the latter. I believe most people would agree that while women have attributes similar to those of men, there are differences not only in their reproductive apparatus, but also in their psychologies. Women tend to be more nurturing, while men tend to be more aggressive. Traditionally these differences are recognized in the development of different roles. Men have been the traditional hunters, while women have been keeping the home fires burning. Basically, women are much more inclined to be family-oriented. This psychology difference carries through into the outside world of economics. Men have traditionally looked to a career as the most consuming item of their existence, with family details as secondary. That is not to say that men are not basically interested in family. They are. Family is their number one priority, but it must not interfere with their employment and wages to guarantee the support of the family. This is the hunter-supply aspect Contrarily, in the nurturing mode, women are much more interested in the details of family, such as all of the various aspects of raising children. When a company hires an employee, it does so on the basis of expected long-term service. The employee is expected to learn his job and create stability and devotion to the progress and future of the organization. For example, if the company decides that it needs an employee at a different work location than the one to which he has previously been assigned, the organization expects that that employee will move with his family to do the job to which he has now been assigned. In such circumstances, wives occasionally object, but almost all will usually go along with the program. Conversely, if the wife is employed and assigned to a different location, it is generally unlikely that a man would be willing to follow the geographical change. He would object strongly, and this causes problems with the company. In many such situations, the wife will be inclined to refuse the employment move. Because of this, it is apparent that generally companies do not obtain as full value concerning dedication and company stability from a woman employee as from a man employee. Therefore, the woman employee is worth less to the organization. This difference is usually demonstrated in lower salary for a woman. Difference in psychology also has an effect on the company day-to-day operations. In the family of husband and wife, it is usually the wife who will be inclined to take off from work in order to handle the doctor or dentist requirements for the children. It is not that women are less reliable than men, it is only that women have a different sense of priorities, which generally works against value to a company. Under these circumstances, I believe that the market may be reasonably correct in paying women on average 70% of the salary for men at the same job. This is not to say that there are not many exceptions to women who have pursued careers in preference to family needs, but the average in our society seems to be that the 70% consideration might be about right. Working against the fundamental natures of men and women and against the efficient operations of companies, Pres. Obama may be on the wrong tr

Pres. Obama has been talking recently about equalizing men's and women's wages. As I recall the discussion, the complaint seems to be that women receive on average only 70% of the wages received by men for the same jobs.
    The question is whether this wage difference is a discrimination based on sex or whether there are market forces at work. I propose that it is only the latter. I believe most people would agree that while women have attributes similar to those of men, there are differences not only in their reproductive apparatus, but also in their psychologies. Women tend to be more nurturing, while men tend to be more aggressive. Traditionally these differences are recognized in the development of different roles. Men have been the traditional hunters, while women have been keeping the home fires burning. Basically, women are much more inclined to be family-oriented. This psychology difference carries through into the outside world of economics. Men have traditionally looked to a career as the most consuming item of their existence, with family details as secondary. That is not to say that men are not basically interested in family. They are. Family is their number one priority, but it must not interfere with their employment and wages to guarantee the support of the family. This is the hunter-supply aspect
    Contrarily, in the nurturing mode, women are much more interested in the details of family, such as all of the various aspects of raising children.
    When a company hires an employee, it does so on the basis of expected long-term service. The employee is expected to learn his job and create stability and devotion to the progress and future of the organization. For example, if the company decides that it needs an employee at a different work location than the one to which he has previously been assigned, the organization expects that that employee will move with his family to do the job to which he has now been assigned. In such circumstances, wives occasionally object, but almost all will usually go along with the program. Conversely, if the wife is employed and assigned to a different location, it is generally unlikely that a man would be willing to follow the geographical change. He would object strongly, and this causes problems with the company. In many such situations, the wife will be inclined to refuse the employment move. Because of this, it is apparent that generally companies do not obtain as full value concerning dedication and company stability from a woman employee as from a man employee. Therefore, the woman employee is worth less to the organization. This difference is usually demonstrated in lower salary for a woman.
    Difference in psychology also has an effect on the company day-to-day operations. In the family of husband and wife, it is usually the wife who will be inclined to take off from work in order to handle the doctor or dentist requirements for the children. It is not that women are less reliable than men, it is only that women have a different sense of priorities, which generally works against value to a company. Under these circumstances, I believe that the market may be reasonably correct in paying women on average 70% of the salary for men at the same job. This is not to say that there are not many exceptions to women who have pursued careers in preference to family needs, but the average in our society seems to be that the 70% consideration might be about right.
    Working against the fundamental natures of men and women and against the efficient operations of companies, Pres. Obama may be on the wrong track in trying to equalize men's and women's salaries.