Open Email to Sen. Cruz (Texas):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for sending your form letter comments on the National Defense Authorization Act. For others reading this email, I have copied your form letter below.
I don't recall ever raising a question concerning this law, but since you bring it up, I comment as follows:
First of al, l this law covers everything from soup to nuts, which automatically makes it a bad law. It certainly should not be readdressed and reissued year after year. If we want to put some time limits and dollar amounts on military expenditures, it could likely be done much more directly and conveniently, without including all the "soups and nuts".
Of the multitude of items included in this silly law, you have chosen to fix on religious discrimination and chaplains, fight hard against moving Guantánamo Bay detainees to the US mainland, and opposing indefinite detention of US citizens.
These seem like good points, and I don't disagree with any of them. However, there are likely a number of others you could also take a stand on in this crazy omnibus law. Members of both houses of Congress know very little about the military, and it seems particularly silly for those members to impose various restrictions on military operations. To me, the main point is that Congress should authorize sufficient military funding to allow the military to do its job. This could easily be done by simple consultation between Congressional Subcommittees Chairmen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hopefully, in those discussions the Congressional Chairmen will be wise enough to not try to impose a number of miscellaneous restrictions, some of which may be related to military operations but others more of a organizational or cultural matter. We don't need that. As you know, Sen. Cruz, government has too heavy a hand in all aspects of civilian and military life. It must be cut back.
Dear Arthur,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Input from fellow Texans significantly informs my decision-making and empowers me to better represent the state.
The National Defense Reauthorization Act (NDAA) for 2014 passed the Senate, 84-15, and was signed into law on December 26, 2013. I voted against the bill and am deeply concerned about the administration's ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure that our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.
I am pleased, however, that this year's NDAA includes several significant bipartisan provisions aimed at strengthening religious liberty, modernizing our military justice system, and protecting our troops. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I offered numerous amendments to the NDAA during its consideration. Two of my amendments, one requiring an independent investigation into religious discrimination against troops practicing their beliefs and one ensuring an anonymous survey of chaplains regarding threats to their faith and work, were adopted by the Committee and included in the final bill. I supported the inclusion of language treating the Fort Hood terrorist attack as such, rather than "workplace violence," as well as language ensuring a State Department reward for help apprehending the Benghazi terrorists, though these provisions weren't included to the extent I preferred. I also fought for measures to prevent Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transported to the United States and to protect domestic military bases from unnecessary closure, but, unfortunately, these were not included in the final legislation. As we approach the 2015 reauthorization, I will continue to fight for these and other measures that keep our nation safe and basic rights secure.
Thank you for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about any issue important to your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of Texas.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Saturday, February 22, 2014
National Debt Versus Deficit and Ukraine
We have a comment from one of our political advisers concerning the national debt and. Ukraine as follows:
"Keep those debt figures "front and center" in the minds of the American people. NPR did a program yesterday in which they were clearly trying to confuse the listeners concerning the debt and the deficit. Once they had the average person thinking that the two words must represent the same figure, they proceeded to speak about the fact that since Obama has managed to reduce the deficit below a trillion, money isn't really a concern anymore.
Personally, I was happy to see that the European Union got involved with the situation in Ukraine in the last couple of days with their boundaries and their sanctions against Russia. I say we should let them deal with it."
"Keep those debt figures "front and center" in the minds of the American people. NPR did a program yesterday in which they were clearly trying to confuse the listeners concerning the debt and the deficit. Once they had the average person thinking that the two words must represent the same figure, they proceeded to speak about the fact that since Obama has managed to reduce the deficit below a trillion, money isn't really a concern anymore.
Personally, I was happy to see that the European Union got involved with the situation in Ukraine in the last couple of days with their boundaries and their sanctions against Russia. I say we should let them deal with it."
Sen. Cruz (TX) on Energy, Ukraine, and Marriage
Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the energy revolution, Ukraine violence, and the marriage bill. My comments with respect to yours are as follows:
Energy Revolution
I completely support any of your promotion actions in this area. Energy should be a matter of government policy, because it affects the national economy including jobs.
Ukraine Violence
I completely disagree with your implied US involvement in the Ukraine political situation. While I am sympathetic to those being killed and their families, it is none of our business. We have no justification for involvement and no money to do it. Remember the $17 trillion debt. I have previously written on the subject. An excerpt from that writing is, " In the first place, the Ukrainian people elected their present government. They wanted it, and they must suffer with it."
Marriage Bill
You have introduced enact anti-gay marriage bill, which is interpreted as.defending states' right to regulate marriage.
I completely disagree with your position on this, marriage is a cultural matter and neither the federal government, state government or local government should be involved. The only question should be whether there are certain financial benefits accruing to either same-sex or opposite sex marriages. In both cases, my opinion is that they should be none. Government has no right to discriminate on a cultural matter.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the energy revolution, Ukraine violence, and the marriage bill. My comments with respect to yours are as follows:
Energy Revolution
I completely support any of your promotion actions in this area. Energy should be a matter of government policy, because it affects the national economy including jobs.
Ukraine Violence
I completely disagree with your implied US involvement in the Ukraine political situation. While I am sympathetic to those being killed and their families, it is none of our business. We have no justification for involvement and no money to do it. Remember the $17 trillion debt. I have previously written on the subject. An excerpt from that writing is, " In the first place, the Ukrainian people elected their present government. They wanted it, and they must suffer with it."
Marriage Bill
You have introduced enact anti-gay marriage bill, which is interpreted as.defending states' right to regulate marriage.
I completely disagree with your position on this, marriage is a cultural matter and neither the federal government, state government or local government should be involved. The only question should be whether there are certain financial benefits accruing to either same-sex or opposite sex marriages. In both cases, my opinion is that they should be none. Government has no right to discriminate on a cultural matter.
Replace Headof Veterans Administration
Open Email to:
Jeff Miller, Chairman House Committee on Veterans Affairs Bernie Sanders, Chairman Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
Dear Chairmen Miller and Sanders,
Eric Shinseki has been doing a lousy job as head of the Veterans Administration and should be replaced immediately.
The latest fiasco is with veterans' hearing aids (Washington Times, Saturday, 2/22/14).
Jeff Miller, Chairman House Committee on Veterans Affairs Bernie Sanders, Chairman Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
Dear Chairmen Miller and Sanders,
Eric Shinseki has been doing a lousy job as head of the Veterans Administration and should be replaced immediately.
The latest fiasco is with veterans' hearing aids (Washington Times, Saturday, 2/22/14).
Friday, February 21, 2014
Violence in the Ukraine
Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
I again hear the US war drum beats! This time its concerns the Ukraine. The arguments go something like this: The Ukrainian government is killing its people. We have to do something about it. We must be on the side of the Ukrainian people. We must send them help. Should it be money, munitions, or our own soldiers. The Ukrainian government is friendly with Russia, who is our normal enemy. That's another reason we must be involved.
All of the above arguments are hogwash, as easily determined by a little practical analysis. In the first place, the Ukrainian people elected their present government. They wanted it, and they must suffer with it. If Ukrainian people now don't like their present government, that seems to me insufficient reason to start a civil shooting war. Similarly, the US electorate elected Obama as US President. There are bunch of us who don't like it, but we suffer with it. We make no attempt to physically overthrow him. The people wanted it. We suffer with it.
Then we have the grand strategists, who claim that the Ukrainian government plays footsies with the Russians, to the pleasure of the Russians, because the Russians want to reestablish the old former Soviet Union. Strategists say we don't want that, because it disturbs the balance of power. They want the Ukraine to be part of a so-called Western bloc of democracy. But again, look at what the Ukrainian people did. They voted for their present government and knew, or should have known, that it was partial to the Russians. Who are we, the US, to tell the Ukrainian people that they should have voted differently, and if they have apparently made a mistake, we are running to their rescue?
We got into stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably on the basis that it would have some effect to minimize terrorism in our homeland. That was a real stretch, which cost us billions of dollars and many lost American soldiers lives. Do we want to do this all over again in the Ukraine? When do we start to learn from our own experiences, not to say the experiences of others?
The fact is that we are broke and deeply in debt. Debtors have no real power, and any of our enemies recognize that. We used to be the primary power of the world, as were the English at one time, but we lost ground heavily as we were unable to control our own economy.
Dear Representatives and Senators,
I again hear the US war drum beats! This time its concerns the Ukraine. The arguments go something like this: The Ukrainian government is killing its people. We have to do something about it. We must be on the side of the Ukrainian people. We must send them help. Should it be money, munitions, or our own soldiers. The Ukrainian government is friendly with Russia, who is our normal enemy. That's another reason we must be involved.
All of the above arguments are hogwash, as easily determined by a little practical analysis. In the first place, the Ukrainian people elected their present government. They wanted it, and they must suffer with it. If Ukrainian people now don't like their present government, that seems to me insufficient reason to start a civil shooting war. Similarly, the US electorate elected Obama as US President. There are bunch of us who don't like it, but we suffer with it. We make no attempt to physically overthrow him. The people wanted it. We suffer with it.
Then we have the grand strategists, who claim that the Ukrainian government plays footsies with the Russians, to the pleasure of the Russians, because the Russians want to reestablish the old former Soviet Union. Strategists say we don't want that, because it disturbs the balance of power. They want the Ukraine to be part of a so-called Western bloc of democracy. But again, look at what the Ukrainian people did. They voted for their present government and knew, or should have known, that it was partial to the Russians. Who are we, the US, to tell the Ukrainian people that they should have voted differently, and if they have apparently made a mistake, we are running to their rescue?
We got into stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably on the basis that it would have some effect to minimize terrorism in our homeland. That was a real stretch, which cost us billions of dollars and many lost American soldiers lives. Do we want to do this all over again in the Ukraine? When do we start to learn from our own experiences, not to say the experiences of others?
The fact is that we are broke and deeply in debt. Debtors have no real power, and any of our enemies recognize that. We used to be the primary power of the world, as were the English at one time, but we lost ground heavily as we were unable to control our own economy.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Future of the Republican Party
Open email to Political Advisers with copy to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Political Advisers,
We have a report from one of the younger members of our Political Advisor Group, in which he paints a dire picture for the future of the Republican Party as follows:
" I realize I am likely in the minority on some issues, but if Republicans want to win elections and make real changes on a national level, we need to stop living in the past when it comes to social issues like gay marriage and marijuana use. I don't agree with either of those personally, but we have to separate personal opinion from law. The federal government should not be in the business of legislating morals. The evangelicals had their time influencing our party and now do more harm than good. They are not good for our party or our platform. How can the party of liberty and small government also be the party of telling people who they can marry and what they can put in their bodies? These inconsistencies are alarming to many voters. The future is true liberty-minded politics with a return to sound constitutional government. According to several recent polls, libertarian voters are the fastest growing segment in American politics and the Republican Party would be wise to listen to some of their ideas. They now make up 25% of the voting base overall, not just among registered Republicans. What people like me want to see from the Republican Party is a shift back toward the Constitution and individual liberty. If we don't get it from the Republican Party we will find it somewhere else. With the advent of the internet, knowledge is available to virtually everyone. Young voters are aware of the federal reserve and monetary policy and tax rates. Talking about being a good Christian family man is not reason enough to win my vote. I want to know that you will stand up and do the right thing in Washington and make real, painful, considerable cuts across the board. That includes social welfare programs, food stamps, farm subsidies, military industrial complex, the whole thing. 30% or more cuts across the board. Not 5% cut in proposed budget increases over the next 10 years."
As personal comment on the above, I see the danger of the shift of young knowledgeable people toward the Libertarian Party. If that occurs at the voting booth, it will split the non-Democrat vote, so that the Democrats will surely win, and the Republicans will be out, perhaps forever. Republican leadership must move now in the direction advised by our young Political Advisor or suffer the consequences.
Republican leadership in the House must move now in the direction of heavy budget cuts. While that would involve a theoretical risk of losing votes, because of subsidy and job cuts, those affected would mostly be voting Democrat anyhow. It is worth the risk, because Republicans will lose without it.
Dear Political Advisers,
We have a report from one of the younger members of our Political Advisor Group, in which he paints a dire picture for the future of the Republican Party as follows:
" I realize I am likely in the minority on some issues, but if Republicans want to win elections and make real changes on a national level, we need to stop living in the past when it comes to social issues like gay marriage and marijuana use. I don't agree with either of those personally, but we have to separate personal opinion from law. The federal government should not be in the business of legislating morals. The evangelicals had their time influencing our party and now do more harm than good. They are not good for our party or our platform. How can the party of liberty and small government also be the party of telling people who they can marry and what they can put in their bodies? These inconsistencies are alarming to many voters. The future is true liberty-minded politics with a return to sound constitutional government. According to several recent polls, libertarian voters are the fastest growing segment in American politics and the Republican Party would be wise to listen to some of their ideas. They now make up 25% of the voting base overall, not just among registered Republicans. What people like me want to see from the Republican Party is a shift back toward the Constitution and individual liberty. If we don't get it from the Republican Party we will find it somewhere else. With the advent of the internet, knowledge is available to virtually everyone. Young voters are aware of the federal reserve and monetary policy and tax rates. Talking about being a good Christian family man is not reason enough to win my vote. I want to know that you will stand up and do the right thing in Washington and make real, painful, considerable cuts across the board. That includes social welfare programs, food stamps, farm subsidies, military industrial complex, the whole thing. 30% or more cuts across the board. Not 5% cut in proposed budget increases over the next 10 years."
As personal comment on the above, I see the danger of the shift of young knowledgeable people toward the Libertarian Party. If that occurs at the voting booth, it will split the non-Democrat vote, so that the Democrats will surely win, and the Republicans will be out, perhaps forever. Republican leadership must move now in the direction advised by our young Political Advisor or suffer the consequences.
Republican leadership in the House must move now in the direction of heavy budget cuts. While that would involve a theoretical risk of losing votes, because of subsidy and job cuts, those affected would mostly be voting Democrat anyhow. It is worth the risk, because Republicans will lose without it.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Extending the National Debt Limit
Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
You have claimed to have done the "right thing" in the recent Senate vote on raising the debt limit.
However, I have a converse opinion from one of my Political Associates, which is as follows:
"The vote was 'Lost' in the cloture vote. Senator Cruz was prepared to filibuster the bill, but all the democrats along with 2 or 3 Republicans voted for cloture. This left the vote for cloture 2 short of the 60 required. Harry Reid extended the vote time and inside 2 minutes left, McConnell and Cornyn rode in and became the 59th and 60th vote. Then with the cover of the 60th vote being made several other Republicans jumped in.
My understanding of this debt bill, it is unique in that it doesn't put a $ number, but rescinds the debt limit till March 2015. So between now and then Washington can spend with ZERO restrictions, and I expect they will. This is an Obama Dream.
Cornyn will truthfully be able to say he voted against the bill, but it came up to vote because McConnell and Cornyn (and the rest of the Republican Establishment) have NO legislative strategy or worse they have adopted Obama's strategy. I personally am finished with the Republican Party. I will not be voting for any incumbents, I see them as tainted by the Establishment. I will not give them a thin dime and tell them that every time they call for a donation.
Anyone who paves the path for Obama's success and the decline of American Freedom or even standing by doing nothing, I will not support. We are in the fight of our life and our children's future is at stake."
Sen. Cornyn, this is a key point on which many of us will choose to vote for or against you in the next election. The issue will not go away. We have long memories. I suggest you face up to it now, with a short, complete, and clear response which you believe justifies your action.
As I understand it you voted to allow the bill to come to a Senate vote, when you knew that in that subsequent vote, the Democratic majority would pass it. You then voted against the final bill as an act of bravado, when you knew it would have no effect on the outcome.
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
You have claimed to have done the "right thing" in the recent Senate vote on raising the debt limit.
However, I have a converse opinion from one of my Political Associates, which is as follows:
"The vote was 'Lost' in the cloture vote. Senator Cruz was prepared to filibuster the bill, but all the democrats along with 2 or 3 Republicans voted for cloture. This left the vote for cloture 2 short of the 60 required. Harry Reid extended the vote time and inside 2 minutes left, McConnell and Cornyn rode in and became the 59th and 60th vote. Then with the cover of the 60th vote being made several other Republicans jumped in.
My understanding of this debt bill, it is unique in that it doesn't put a $ number, but rescinds the debt limit till March 2015. So between now and then Washington can spend with ZERO restrictions, and I expect they will. This is an Obama Dream.
Cornyn will truthfully be able to say he voted against the bill, but it came up to vote because McConnell and Cornyn (and the rest of the Republican Establishment) have NO legislative strategy or worse they have adopted Obama's strategy. I personally am finished with the Republican Party. I will not be voting for any incumbents, I see them as tainted by the Establishment. I will not give them a thin dime and tell them that every time they call for a donation.
Anyone who paves the path for Obama's success and the decline of American Freedom or even standing by doing nothing, I will not support. We are in the fight of our life and our children's future is at stake."
Sen. Cornyn, this is a key point on which many of us will choose to vote for or against you in the next election. The issue will not go away. We have long memories. I suggest you face up to it now, with a short, complete, and clear response which you believe justifies your action.
As I understand it you voted to allow the bill to come to a Senate vote, when you knew that in that subsequent vote, the Democratic majority would pass it. You then voted against the final bill as an act of bravado, when you knew it would have no effect on the outcome.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Dividing California into Six States I
Open Email to Texas House Representatives and Senators:
Dear Texas House Representatives and Senators,
I had previously emailed you concerning a proposal in California to divide the state into six smaller states. In order for that to be accomplished, Congress will have to vote its agreement.
If it comes to a vote in Congress, I previously requested that you vote in favor of the division. I made my request on the basis that California now votes its 55 seats in the House of Representatives generally as a democratic bloc, whereas if the state is split into six smaller states, the 55 electoral votes might be more diverse, in favor of Republicans.
Two of our Political Associates have pointed out that the second effect of the six-state creation would be to change the number of senators from the present 2 to 12. Since California is basically a Democrat state, it is likely that more than half of the new 12 Senators would be Democrats, which would effectively increase California representation to a larger number of Democrats.
Therefore, I change my position. If the vote ever comes to the Congress, I request that you vote AGAINST the split.
Dear Texas House Representatives and Senators,
I had previously emailed you concerning a proposal in California to divide the state into six smaller states. In order for that to be accomplished, Congress will have to vote its agreement.
If it comes to a vote in Congress, I previously requested that you vote in favor of the division. I made my request on the basis that California now votes its 55 seats in the House of Representatives generally as a democratic bloc, whereas if the state is split into six smaller states, the 55 electoral votes might be more diverse, in favor of Republicans.
Two of our Political Associates have pointed out that the second effect of the six-state creation would be to change the number of senators from the present 2 to 12. Since California is basically a Democrat state, it is likely that more than half of the new 12 Senators would be Democrats, which would effectively increase California representation to a larger number of Democrats.
Therefore, I change my position. If the vote ever comes to the Congress, I request that you vote AGAINST the split.
Federal Agencies' Abusive Control
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
We had been discussing the power of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In your form letter you said, "America has been blessed with many natural resources. It is our duty to act as responsible stewards to protect our waters, air and land, as well as the many plants and animals that inhabit the country. The best way to protect all these resources is rational environmental laws, balancing the protection of the environment with the rights of private property owners. We should also recognize that protecting the environment and promoting economic growth are not mutually exclusive policy goals."
We agree on that point.
You also said, "State and local governments, businesses, and private property owners who are most familiar with the specific needs of their own resources should take a leading role in this important task. Where any federal authority is granted, the government must work collaboratively with local authorities to impose minimal hardship on citizens and personal property while pursuing conservation goals."
We also agree on this point, but herein lies the rub. Not only does the Environmental Protection Agency but other various other agencies, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, exercise unnecessary mandatory controls on the use of private property. For example, the EPA limits carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, without any justification that it is a direct benefit to the public on air quality. Restrictions on development of private property which happen to be a home for snail darters or prairie chickens are no benefit to the general public. In fact, most mandatory restrictions are detrimental to the public interest through inhibiting the economy and making fewer jobs available.
What I am seeking from you and other members of Congress is to rein in the powers of these agencies to conform closely with what Congress had intended when it set up the laws establishing the agencies.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
We had been discussing the power of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In your form letter you said, "America has been blessed with many natural resources. It is our duty to act as responsible stewards to protect our waters, air and land, as well as the many plants and animals that inhabit the country. The best way to protect all these resources is rational environmental laws, balancing the protection of the environment with the rights of private property owners. We should also recognize that protecting the environment and promoting economic growth are not mutually exclusive policy goals."
We agree on that point.
You also said, "State and local governments, businesses, and private property owners who are most familiar with the specific needs of their own resources should take a leading role in this important task. Where any federal authority is granted, the government must work collaboratively with local authorities to impose minimal hardship on citizens and personal property while pursuing conservation goals."
We also agree on this point, but herein lies the rub. Not only does the Environmental Protection Agency but other various other agencies, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, exercise unnecessary mandatory controls on the use of private property. For example, the EPA limits carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, without any justification that it is a direct benefit to the public on air quality. Restrictions on development of private property which happen to be a home for snail darters or prairie chickens are no benefit to the general public. In fact, most mandatory restrictions are detrimental to the public interest through inhibiting the economy and making fewer jobs available.
What I am seeking from you and other members of Congress is to rein in the powers of these agencies to conform closely with what Congress had intended when it set up the laws establishing the agencies.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Dividing California into Smaller States
Open Email to Texas House Representatives and Senators:
Dear Texas House Representatives and Senators,
According to the Washington Times,Tim Draper, a multimillionaire Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has proposed dividing California into six states. The proposal was taken seriously by the state government and given a legislative analysis. Legislative analysis indicated in a report that the division is practical. I have not seen the report, but the Washington Times goes through the various pluses and minuses of the proposal, presumably taken from the report. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/six-californias-plan-difficult-but-doable-assessme/.
It should also be noted that Silicon Valley, the origin of the proposal, would become the richest state of the six.
It is said that organizers are working to gather the 1 million signatures needed to place the measure on the November ballot. If California voters vote in favor of dividing the state into six states, it is also said that Congressional approval would be necessary to make the split. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress to grant statehood. The Constitution declares that new states cannot be created by merging or splitting existing states without the approval of both the U.S. Congress and the states' legislatures.
Proposer Tim Draper said, “California, as it is, is ungovernable". Presumably, he means it is ungovernable because of its size. If that is really the case, how is Texas, which is also very large, governable, or even the whole United States governed by the Federal government?
What does this mean to non-Californians, if California is divided? Others may see some advantages and disadvantages, but I only see now an advantage to voters in federal elections. As it now stands, California has 55 electoral votes, which is almost twice as much as any other state, except for Texas. This entitles California to 55 seats in the House of Representatives. Since California is considered a Democrat state, 55 Democrats in the House are a significant bloc involving passage of legislation. If the state is split into six parts, the collective 55 electoral votes would also be split, presumably in favor of Republicans.
The other question is whether the citizens of other states have the right to tell Californians what they must do. I believe they do not have that right. This is also consistent with my opinion that if California cannot govern itself in its present form, it also has the uninterrupted responsibility to bankruptcy without support of other states. If California is split into six parts, one or more of those six may still go bankrupt, wherein I have the same opinion. If they are unable to handle their problems, they must bear the suffering consequences.
My recommendation to our Texas Representatives and 2 Senators is that if the situation comes to a vote in the U.S. Congress, you will vote in favor of allowing California to divide into smaller states.
Dear Texas House Representatives and Senators,
According to the Washington Times,Tim Draper, a multimillionaire Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has proposed dividing California into six states. The proposal was taken seriously by the state government and given a legislative analysis. Legislative analysis indicated in a report that the division is practical. I have not seen the report, but the Washington Times goes through the various pluses and minuses of the proposal, presumably taken from the report. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/six-californias-plan-difficult-but-doable-assessme/.
It should also be noted that Silicon Valley, the origin of the proposal, would become the richest state of the six.
It is said that organizers are working to gather the 1 million signatures needed to place the measure on the November ballot. If California voters vote in favor of dividing the state into six states, it is also said that Congressional approval would be necessary to make the split. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress to grant statehood. The Constitution declares that new states cannot be created by merging or splitting existing states without the approval of both the U.S. Congress and the states' legislatures.
Proposer Tim Draper said, “California, as it is, is ungovernable". Presumably, he means it is ungovernable because of its size. If that is really the case, how is Texas, which is also very large, governable, or even the whole United States governed by the Federal government?
What does this mean to non-Californians, if California is divided? Others may see some advantages and disadvantages, but I only see now an advantage to voters in federal elections. As it now stands, California has 55 electoral votes, which is almost twice as much as any other state, except for Texas. This entitles California to 55 seats in the House of Representatives. Since California is considered a Democrat state, 55 Democrats in the House are a significant bloc involving passage of legislation. If the state is split into six parts, the collective 55 electoral votes would also be split, presumably in favor of Republicans.
The other question is whether the citizens of other states have the right to tell Californians what they must do. I believe they do not have that right. This is also consistent with my opinion that if California cannot govern itself in its present form, it also has the uninterrupted responsibility to bankruptcy without support of other states. If California is split into six parts, one or more of those six may still go bankrupt, wherein I have the same opinion. If they are unable to handle their problems, they must bear the suffering consequences.
My recommendation to our Texas Representatives and 2 Senators is that if the situation comes to a vote in the U.S. Congress, you will vote in favor of allowing California to divide into smaller states.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Pres. Obama's Pen and Phone
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
The TV news has well covered Pres. Obama's statement that he will use his pen and phone, for what he considers accomplishments, when he cannot obtain Congressional support.
The Washington Times now elaborates on that, with Republicans on Capitol Hill countering the President's executive actions by putting forward pieces of actual legislation that, in their view, both sides of the aisle should support.
It doesn't seem to me that any of the Republican pieces of legislation counteract any of the Presidents pen and phone actions, but let's look at the detail.
The President has asked the CEOs of many major companies to show some employment preference for the long-term unemployed and to not consider credit histories for their employment. I'm not surprised that the CEOs have generally agreed, because it is a Presidential request. However, it doesn't make sense, because the long-term unemployed have generally been unemployed because they are incapable of employment. It also makes no sense to ignore credit ratings. People who don't know how to handle their money are generally incompetent. It is likely that while the CEOs have tentatively agreed to Pres. Obama's request, they will probably drag their feet in actual application.
The President used executive power to raise the minimum wage for all federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10. Purely a political move. The number of employees of federal contractors making minimum wage are likely insignificant. If not, all it does is increase the cost of government to the public.
The President established new government-backed, interest-bearing retirement accounts for all American workers and took other steps. Rather silly! The operation involves buying government bonds, which the average citizen already knew he could do. One reason he doesn't do it is because he has no incentive to save, in view of Obama's stated goal to equalize assets among the American people. In addition, the interest rate on government bonds is so low as not to justify the risk of government default. There is no mention of what the "other steps" were.
Let's now see what the so-called "counter actions" of Congress have been.
The President talked about supporting federally funded research to unleash more great discoveries. Rep. Gregg Harper, Mississippi Republican said, "We agree. More must be done to prioritize the resources we have to the research we need. We can’t fix it all, but surely creating a lifetime of hope and opportunity for our most, vulnerable kids is more important than subsidizing week-long political pep rallies.” He was pointing at a House passed bill to eliminate public funding for political party conventions and use those dollars to fund pediatric research at the National Institutes of Health. Pure baloney! I've been trained in science research, worked seven years in Research and Development, and many more years judging what research has actually done. There's no question that research is necessary and must be of two types; basic and applied. But even the "basic" must have a logical basis. Should we spend money to determine how frequently a butterfly flaps its wings. There is always a possible application, but it's too far out. Up to now we have spent billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on research projects at universities. Can someone name some practical result of this expenditure? Even if research has uncovered some new basic opportunities, as it has done in several aspects of private industry, it takes many years to develop to the point of affecting employment. But, we have an unemployment problem now. Research will do us no good on the immediate problems. That is not to say we should give up research, but it should be left to private industry, who has a monetary incentive and knows how to make proper judgments on how it should be oriented and whether certain projects should even be discontinued.
Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama highlighted a measure that would allow workers in the private sector to use their overtime toward paid time off. What? How does this socialist from Alabama believe that she has the right to tell corporations how they should handle overtime and paid time off? A ridiculous suggestion, which tends to further inhibit economic development by imposing further restriction on corporate and private company operations!
Rep. Susan Brooks of Indiana called on the President to support legislation consolidating federal training programs and strengthening federal partnerships with community colleges. Not a bad suggestion on the surface, but look a little deeper. We should not have federal training programs and don't need federal partnerships with community colleges. Training programs are already available through private education and private industry and can be monetarily supported by individuals and their families. I didn't receive a federal training program, and I believe most people, who know me would agree that I'm reasonably well trained to do my job as a chemist. How did I get the training? I worked for it and my family helped support it, with later help from my employers. With respect to federal partnerships with community colleges, we already have too much partnership in federal grants for ridiculous research projects. The federal government should get out of the business of meddling. Americans should handle their own training, in cooperation with colleges, universities, and industries with specific training programs.
Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan Republican and Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, "We believe that this can be a year of bipartisan action, a moment when speeches give way to solutions. The American people never let us down, and we cannot let them down either.” Naïve or the usual "two chickens in every pot" speech!. As long as we have a Senate dominated by Communists parading under a Democratic name, there's no hope for the country. Until they are out and the Communistic President in some way immobilized, there is no hope for a redevelopment of our country.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
The TV news has well covered Pres. Obama's statement that he will use his pen and phone, for what he considers accomplishments, when he cannot obtain Congressional support.
The Washington Times now elaborates on that, with Republicans on Capitol Hill countering the President's executive actions by putting forward pieces of actual legislation that, in their view, both sides of the aisle should support.
It doesn't seem to me that any of the Republican pieces of legislation counteract any of the Presidents pen and phone actions, but let's look at the detail.
The President has asked the CEOs of many major companies to show some employment preference for the long-term unemployed and to not consider credit histories for their employment. I'm not surprised that the CEOs have generally agreed, because it is a Presidential request. However, it doesn't make sense, because the long-term unemployed have generally been unemployed because they are incapable of employment. It also makes no sense to ignore credit ratings. People who don't know how to handle their money are generally incompetent. It is likely that while the CEOs have tentatively agreed to Pres. Obama's request, they will probably drag their feet in actual application.
The President used executive power to raise the minimum wage for all federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10. Purely a political move. The number of employees of federal contractors making minimum wage are likely insignificant. If not, all it does is increase the cost of government to the public.
The President established new government-backed, interest-bearing retirement accounts for all American workers and took other steps. Rather silly! The operation involves buying government bonds, which the average citizen already knew he could do. One reason he doesn't do it is because he has no incentive to save, in view of Obama's stated goal to equalize assets among the American people. In addition, the interest rate on government bonds is so low as not to justify the risk of government default. There is no mention of what the "other steps" were.
Let's now see what the so-called "counter actions" of Congress have been.
The President talked about supporting federally funded research to unleash more great discoveries. Rep. Gregg Harper, Mississippi Republican said, "We agree. More must be done to prioritize the resources we have to the research we need. We can’t fix it all, but surely creating a lifetime of hope and opportunity for our most, vulnerable kids is more important than subsidizing week-long political pep rallies.” He was pointing at a House passed bill to eliminate public funding for political party conventions and use those dollars to fund pediatric research at the National Institutes of Health. Pure baloney! I've been trained in science research, worked seven years in Research and Development, and many more years judging what research has actually done. There's no question that research is necessary and must be of two types; basic and applied. But even the "basic" must have a logical basis. Should we spend money to determine how frequently a butterfly flaps its wings. There is always a possible application, but it's too far out. Up to now we have spent billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on research projects at universities. Can someone name some practical result of this expenditure? Even if research has uncovered some new basic opportunities, as it has done in several aspects of private industry, it takes many years to develop to the point of affecting employment. But, we have an unemployment problem now. Research will do us no good on the immediate problems. That is not to say we should give up research, but it should be left to private industry, who has a monetary incentive and knows how to make proper judgments on how it should be oriented and whether certain projects should even be discontinued.
Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama highlighted a measure that would allow workers in the private sector to use their overtime toward paid time off. What? How does this socialist from Alabama believe that she has the right to tell corporations how they should handle overtime and paid time off? A ridiculous suggestion, which tends to further inhibit economic development by imposing further restriction on corporate and private company operations!
Rep. Susan Brooks of Indiana called on the President to support legislation consolidating federal training programs and strengthening federal partnerships with community colleges. Not a bad suggestion on the surface, but look a little deeper. We should not have federal training programs and don't need federal partnerships with community colleges. Training programs are already available through private education and private industry and can be monetarily supported by individuals and their families. I didn't receive a federal training program, and I believe most people, who know me would agree that I'm reasonably well trained to do my job as a chemist. How did I get the training? I worked for it and my family helped support it, with later help from my employers. With respect to federal partnerships with community colleges, we already have too much partnership in federal grants for ridiculous research projects. The federal government should get out of the business of meddling. Americans should handle their own training, in cooperation with colleges, universities, and industries with specific training programs.
Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan Republican and Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, "We believe that this can be a year of bipartisan action, a moment when speeches give way to solutions. The American people never let us down, and we cannot let them down either.” Naïve or the usual "two chickens in every pot" speech!. As long as we have a Senate dominated by Communists parading under a Democratic name, there's no hope for the country. Until they are out and the Communistic President in some way immobilized, there is no hope for a redevelopment of our country.
Illegal Immigrants
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
The Washington Times says that House Republican leaders have ruled out granting citizenship, but do support granting some form of legal status and work permits to most illegal immigrants. You are quoted as saying, “This problem’s been around for at least the last 15 years. It’s been turned into a political football. I think it’s unfair. So I think it’s time to deal with it.”
I completely disagree with the proposal, because it is further weakens our society as being based upon enforced laws. Do we continue to modify our laws with exceptions that eventually lead to no law and no enforcement, with resulting anarchy?
Consider the ridiculousness of the statement of granting any kind of legality to illegals. An illegal has broken the law, and the law should not be changed to conform to that illegality.
However, consistent with any problem, there are opportunities for resolution if one starts to look at the detail.
Any person over the age of 18, who entered the United States illegally, is an illegal alien. He should remain as such and prosecuted according to the abilities of US law enforcement. Note that this does not mean the desire of law enforcement officials. Prosecution of illegals should involve deportation back to their home countries, where they can get in line for possible immigration to the US, under a work permit or a green card, which could lead to their becoming eventually naturalized citizens. There should also be some penalty for their having previously acted illegally. This penalty might be a minor fine of say $100 per Illegal, or an extension of time, say one year, if they reenter the United States legally and have opted to gain US citizenship. We have a few million of these people, and it is said that it is impractical to handle them all on an individual basis. There is obviously some merit in that, which only means that illegal immigrants in the US, must remain illega, l until such time as Immigration Contro l catches up with them. Since that may never be, they will remain illegal immigrants until their death in the US. During their time of illegality in the US, they will receive none of the benefits of US citizens, including the right to vote, be on Social Security, have legal drivers licenses, etc. In other words, they will be people without a country. If this is unsatisfactory to them, they always have the independent option of returning voluntarily to their native countries.
Children born in the US of illegal citizens should automatically be US citizens, consistent with my understanding of present immigration laws. If their illegal parents are deported, the parents should have the right to take their children back to their home countries, or leave them with responsible citizens in the US. A court should determine whether such guardians are responsible.
Children, less than 18 years of age, who have entered the United States with their parents are by definition not illegal aliens, simply because they are children. This should apply whether the parents have entered legally or not. As those children gain in age and eventually reach 18, they automatically become citizens as do any children in America. Children whose parents are deported for illegality before the children reach the age of 18 should be under the parents option of taking them back to parents' home countries or leaving them with responsible US citizens. See the previous paragraph.
With respect to your statement of "time to deal with it", it is almost always time to deal with any problem. However, some problems do not have to be dealt with at a particular time, if conditions are improper to the development of an appropriate solution. As long as we have a Democratically controlled Congress and a Democratic President, who collectively want legal status for illegals, in order to gain more Democratic votes, this does not appear to be the appropriate time. My above suggestion of treatment is consistent with constitutional integrity and avoids the use of any improper motivations, such as both gaining. When the political time is right to take a common-sense approach, as I have proposed, that will be the time to do it.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
The Washington Times says that House Republican leaders have ruled out granting citizenship, but do support granting some form of legal status and work permits to most illegal immigrants. You are quoted as saying, “This problem’s been around for at least the last 15 years. It’s been turned into a political football. I think it’s unfair. So I think it’s time to deal with it.”
I completely disagree with the proposal, because it is further weakens our society as being based upon enforced laws. Do we continue to modify our laws with exceptions that eventually lead to no law and no enforcement, with resulting anarchy?
Consider the ridiculousness of the statement of granting any kind of legality to illegals. An illegal has broken the law, and the law should not be changed to conform to that illegality.
However, consistent with any problem, there are opportunities for resolution if one starts to look at the detail.
Any person over the age of 18, who entered the United States illegally, is an illegal alien. He should remain as such and prosecuted according to the abilities of US law enforcement. Note that this does not mean the desire of law enforcement officials. Prosecution of illegals should involve deportation back to their home countries, where they can get in line for possible immigration to the US, under a work permit or a green card, which could lead to their becoming eventually naturalized citizens. There should also be some penalty for their having previously acted illegally. This penalty might be a minor fine of say $100 per Illegal, or an extension of time, say one year, if they reenter the United States legally and have opted to gain US citizenship. We have a few million of these people, and it is said that it is impractical to handle them all on an individual basis. There is obviously some merit in that, which only means that illegal immigrants in the US, must remain illega, l until such time as Immigration Contro l catches up with them. Since that may never be, they will remain illegal immigrants until their death in the US. During their time of illegality in the US, they will receive none of the benefits of US citizens, including the right to vote, be on Social Security, have legal drivers licenses, etc. In other words, they will be people without a country. If this is unsatisfactory to them, they always have the independent option of returning voluntarily to their native countries.
Children born in the US of illegal citizens should automatically be US citizens, consistent with my understanding of present immigration laws. If their illegal parents are deported, the parents should have the right to take their children back to their home countries, or leave them with responsible citizens in the US. A court should determine whether such guardians are responsible.
Children, less than 18 years of age, who have entered the United States with their parents are by definition not illegal aliens, simply because they are children. This should apply whether the parents have entered legally or not. As those children gain in age and eventually reach 18, they automatically become citizens as do any children in America. Children whose parents are deported for illegality before the children reach the age of 18 should be under the parents option of taking them back to parents' home countries or leaving them with responsible US citizens. See the previous paragraph.
With respect to your statement of "time to deal with it", it is almost always time to deal with any problem. However, some problems do not have to be dealt with at a particular time, if conditions are improper to the development of an appropriate solution. As long as we have a Democratically controlled Congress and a Democratic President, who collectively want legal status for illegals, in order to gain more Democratic votes, this does not appear to be the appropriate time. My above suggestion of treatment is consistent with constitutional integrity and avoids the use of any improper motivations, such as both gaining. When the political time is right to take a common-sense approach, as I have proposed, that will be the time to do it.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Nauseating Farm Bill Addendum II
I have previously written that the $1 trillion Farm bill passed by the House and on its way through the Senate and President is nauseating, because it is a prime case of pork to special interest groups, and has no advantage for nonfarmers, who will be footing the bill.
A political advisor, who apparently agrees with my position that the bill is nauseous, has a different reason, as follows:
"The majority of this farm bill is directed not to farmers. Most of the funding is directed to food stamp programs. These programs feed the people who aren't pulling the wagon. As we invest more into them we need to expect more of them.
I don't want anyone to go hungry, but I do want Americans to hunger for a better life. Food stamps should only buy beans and rice. If you want more in your diet...work for it. The greatest charity work that can be done for humans is to allow them to earn an honorable living. Any handout, unearned benefit or free food leads freemen into bondage.
If the GOP wanted to promote freedom and permit prosperity to grow, they would abolish, defund, and eliminate these programs. They however, like the Democrats, want the power, power over the people, that this kind of program provides."
A political advisor, who apparently agrees with my position that the bill is nauseous, has a different reason, as follows:
"The majority of this farm bill is directed not to farmers. Most of the funding is directed to food stamp programs. These programs feed the people who aren't pulling the wagon. As we invest more into them we need to expect more of them.
I don't want anyone to go hungry, but I do want Americans to hunger for a better life. Food stamps should only buy beans and rice. If you want more in your diet...work for it. The greatest charity work that can be done for humans is to allow them to earn an honorable living. Any handout, unearned benefit or free food leads freemen into bondage.
If the GOP wanted to promote freedom and permit prosperity to grow, they would abolish, defund, and eliminate these programs. They however, like the Democrats, want the power, power over the people, that this kind of program provides."
Nauseating Farm Bill Addendum I
I recently wrote on the nauseating $1 trillion farm bill which passed the House and is on its way through the Senate and the president to become law. I made some calculations on how much it will cost the average citizen, who will get nothing for it, Except more taxes and debt.
A Political Associate, apparently supporting my position, made some new calculations on the cost to the public. Here's what he had to say:
"I suspect there are roughly 70-80 million wage-earners in the USA. Or there are about that many wage-earning "family units". Maybe fewer.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_wage_earners_are_there_in_the_US?#slide=1
But let's be optimistic.
So the cost of this trillion dollar farm bill would be roughly $12,000-$15,000 to each wage earner or one-income family unit. Or $25,000-$30,000 for a two-income family.
If the cost is covered by bond borrowing, or other federal debt, the total actual cost (when all the dust settles) to each wage earner or one-income family unit will likely be about $30,000-$50,000. Or $60,000-$100,000 for a two-income family. And that is assuming no misuse of funds or graft or impropriety or other corruption. Unlikely. And it will promote the opposite of accountability and responsibility.
There HAS to be a better free-enterprise way to handle this problem."
A Political Associate, apparently supporting my position, made some new calculations on the cost to the public. Here's what he had to say:
"I suspect there are roughly 70-80 million wage-earners in the USA. Or there are about that many wage-earning "family units". Maybe fewer.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_wage_earners_are_there_in_the_US?#slide=1
But let's be optimistic.
So the cost of this trillion dollar farm bill would be roughly $12,000-$15,000 to each wage earner or one-income family unit. Or $25,000-$30,000 for a two-income family.
If the cost is covered by bond borrowing, or other federal debt, the total actual cost (when all the dust settles) to each wage earner or one-income family unit will likely be about $30,000-$50,000. Or $60,000-$100,000 for a two-income family. And that is assuming no misuse of funds or graft or impropriety or other corruption. Unlikely. And it will promote the opposite of accountability and responsibility.
There HAS to be a better free-enterprise way to handle this problem."
Nauseating Farm Bill
The House has passed a $1 trillion Farm Bill. It is expected to easily move through the Senate and then be signed into law by the President. House Appropriations will then fund it.
What does this mean to you?
The US population is 317 million. Since you are one of them, the total $1 trillion will cost you personally $3,155.
How will you pay?
You will pay the $3,155 by paying taxes to the federal government. Any amount of taxes short of $3,155 will be covered by federal government bond borrowing, for which you will be responsible. The people are always responsible for federal government debt, since it is their government that has assumed the debt.
What do you get for your $3,155? Essentially nothing.
The money will go to farmers and related special interest groups. If you are not a farmer or a "special interest", you will receive no benefit for your expense of $3,155.
How did we get into this situation?
For those who live in the Lubbock area, it should be noted that Representative Neugebauer has been a prime motivator for this Farm Bill. His incentive is to be reelected to his office. The strategy is that farmers and other special interest groups will give him money to promote his reelection through advertisement, while non-farmers or non-special interest group voters will pay no attention. Voila! Randy Neugebauer is automatically reelected.
Some persons have said that a generous Farm Bill is good for the Lubbock economy through a trickle-down effect. That is, when farmers and special-interest groups have more public money in that control, they will spend more in the local economy for housing, general purchase of hard and soft goods, and entertainment, such as restaurants. While this is true, trickle-down money is always much smaller than the original bundle. Lubbock people must ask themselves whether they obtain enough benefits to cover the $3,155 individual expense. A Lubbockite might also ask himself whether it is justifiable to sock the cost to other US non-farmers.
Can we do anything to stop this Farm Bill from becoming effective? Probably not.
How did we get into this situation?
Basically, by a continuous alteration of our legislative body, such that members of both the House and Senate are professional politicians. That is, they owe their power and monetary benefits from continuous reelection to office. The mechanism for continuous reelection is always pork spending for local constituents and special interest groups.
The only way this can be changed is to establish term limits for Congress. Without the possibility for reelection, there is much less incentive to engage in pork and special-interest spending while in office.
I have previously considered and written on how term limits might be established. Congress will not automatically vote for term limits on itself. It has no incentive. Another possibility of Constitutional Amendment is possible, but unlikely to be successful, because of its complexity.
The only workable method that I can think of is to pay them off. That is, pay them to leave, in order to reduce the damage that they would be doing by not leaving. This can be accomplished by extremely generous pension benefits. If the individual pension benefits are better than the benefits of remaining in office, and we get 90 to 95% of Representatives and Senators to retire after a single term in office, we have made great progress.
Some persons have said these payments would be unconscionably excessive. I say, one must look at it on a cost/benefit basis. The present system is doing tremendous damage to our economy and national debt. Almost any Congressional pension benefit would be advantageous by comparison.
Others have said such benefits would be costly to the taxpayers. Again, look at it on a cost/benefit basis.
What does this mean to you?
The US population is 317 million. Since you are one of them, the total $1 trillion will cost you personally $3,155.
How will you pay?
You will pay the $3,155 by paying taxes to the federal government. Any amount of taxes short of $3,155 will be covered by federal government bond borrowing, for which you will be responsible. The people are always responsible for federal government debt, since it is their government that has assumed the debt.
What do you get for your $3,155? Essentially nothing.
The money will go to farmers and related special interest groups. If you are not a farmer or a "special interest", you will receive no benefit for your expense of $3,155.
How did we get into this situation?
For those who live in the Lubbock area, it should be noted that Representative Neugebauer has been a prime motivator for this Farm Bill. His incentive is to be reelected to his office. The strategy is that farmers and other special interest groups will give him money to promote his reelection through advertisement, while non-farmers or non-special interest group voters will pay no attention. Voila! Randy Neugebauer is automatically reelected.
Some persons have said that a generous Farm Bill is good for the Lubbock economy through a trickle-down effect. That is, when farmers and special-interest groups have more public money in that control, they will spend more in the local economy for housing, general purchase of hard and soft goods, and entertainment, such as restaurants. While this is true, trickle-down money is always much smaller than the original bundle. Lubbock people must ask themselves whether they obtain enough benefits to cover the $3,155 individual expense. A Lubbockite might also ask himself whether it is justifiable to sock the cost to other US non-farmers.
Can we do anything to stop this Farm Bill from becoming effective? Probably not.
How did we get into this situation?
Basically, by a continuous alteration of our legislative body, such that members of both the House and Senate are professional politicians. That is, they owe their power and monetary benefits from continuous reelection to office. The mechanism for continuous reelection is always pork spending for local constituents and special interest groups.
The only way this can be changed is to establish term limits for Congress. Without the possibility for reelection, there is much less incentive to engage in pork and special-interest spending while in office.
I have previously considered and written on how term limits might be established. Congress will not automatically vote for term limits on itself. It has no incentive. Another possibility of Constitutional Amendment is possible, but unlikely to be successful, because of its complexity.
The only workable method that I can think of is to pay them off. That is, pay them to leave, in order to reduce the damage that they would be doing by not leaving. This can be accomplished by extremely generous pension benefits. If the individual pension benefits are better than the benefits of remaining in office, and we get 90 to 95% of Representatives and Senators to retire after a single term in office, we have made great progress.
Some persons have said these payments would be unconscionably excessive. I say, one must look at it on a cost/benefit basis. The present system is doing tremendous damage to our economy and national debt. Almost any Congressional pension benefit would be advantageous by comparison.
Others have said such benefits would be costly to the taxpayers. Again, look at it on a cost/benefit basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
