E-mail to Congress:
A friend sent me this website address: https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx
It describes a free cell phone and airtime each month for income-eligible customers. I followed it to its source.
It is part of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program, which is known as the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) and was set up under Congressional mandate. Therefore, I need not tell you about it, since you and your Congressional Associates started it. It is said to provide discounts on basic monthly service and initial installation or activation fees for telephone service at the primary residence to income-eligible consumers. There is a minor detail difference in that the advertisement mentions cell phones, while the FCC implies landline phones. However, we consider that a minor factor.
The main question is who pays for this CONVENIENCE to the "poor and underprivileged"? It could be government with the general taxpayers footing the bill. That would be bad enough, but the specific costs are all borne as a group by all telephone users, except the "poor and underprivileged", who pay taxes on their phone usage. The mandate is that all telecommunications service providers must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. Telecommunications service providers then pass the costs on to their customers.
I just checked my telephone bill. My telephone taxes exceed my cost of service by 134%. Rather high, don't you think?
Should I congratulate you personally or the Congress as a group for this major move in contributing to the establishment of a Marxist society?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill into Law
E-mail to Congress:
CNN says, "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law. President Obama signs the $680 billion defense spending bill that includes the hate crimes law. Law is attached to $680 billion defense authorization bill".
As one reads further, it becomes clear that the law makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. We can forgive CNN for eliminating the homosexual aspect from its headline, because we know that CNN is generally considered a socialistic rag. Whether assault of an individual because of homosexuality is a federal offense or not is not my major concern. We already have local laws to control assault of any individual, homosexual or not.
My main point is to chastise you folks in Congress for not having the guts to stand up or down on a specific situation. If you wanted a law making it a federal offense to assault the homosexual, why didn't you say so? Why did you attach it to a defense authorization bill, which has no bearing on any homosexual law.
This is the sort of thing that not only creates public distrust of Congress but also creates downright antagonism.
CNN says, "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law. President Obama signs the $680 billion defense spending bill that includes the hate crimes law. Law is attached to $680 billion defense authorization bill".
As one reads further, it becomes clear that the law makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. We can forgive CNN for eliminating the homosexual aspect from its headline, because we know that CNN is generally considered a socialistic rag. Whether assault of an individual because of homosexuality is a federal offense or not is not my major concern. We already have local laws to control assault of any individual, homosexual or not.
My main point is to chastise you folks in Congress for not having the guts to stand up or down on a specific situation. If you wanted a law making it a federal offense to assault the homosexual, why didn't you say so? Why did you attach it to a defense authorization bill, which has no bearing on any homosexual law.
This is the sort of thing that not only creates public distrust of Congress but also creates downright antagonism.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Bailout Company Executives
It is said on TV that the Obama Administration intends to cut the executive salaries of bailout companies by 50%. This has created a lot of discussion on talk radio and elsewhere.
Government should not have originally bailed out these private companies. However, since the bailouts are an accomplished fact, Government has a dictatorial right to cut executive salaries to whatever level it desires. Congress has approved the bailouts and is part of the dictatorial process. To do this properly, previous bonuses and gains from stock options or other manipulations must also be recovered.
It is also said that the major objection to proceeding with such financial benefit cuts is that good people will leave the bailout companies. Somehow it has escaped the notice of most analysts that there are no good executives in the bailout companies. The companies, such as AIG, have failed as a result of the ineptitude of the executives. If they wish to go somewhere else, good riddance. Any other company directors would be out of their minds in hiring these failures.
Government should not have originally bailed out these private companies. However, since the bailouts are an accomplished fact, Government has a dictatorial right to cut executive salaries to whatever level it desires. Congress has approved the bailouts and is part of the dictatorial process. To do this properly, previous bonuses and gains from stock options or other manipulations must also be recovered.
It is also said that the major objection to proceeding with such financial benefit cuts is that good people will leave the bailout companies. Somehow it has escaped the notice of most analysts that there are no good executives in the bailout companies. The companies, such as AIG, have failed as a result of the ineptitude of the executives. If they wish to go somewhere else, good riddance. Any other company directors would be out of their minds in hiring these failures.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Olympia Snowe and Party Misfits
E-mail to Congress:
This communication is intended to recognize the possibilities for House and Senate members to form alliances across party lines on specific bills. It is also intended to inform Republican and Democratic Party voters of the inherent dangers in voting a straight Republican or Democratic ticket.
Republicans are generally characterized as fiscal conservatives, which means they generally like to spend less money on less questionable projects then do Democrats. However, there are various members of the House and Senate, who parade under the name of One Party and yet adhere to the principles of the Other Party. A typical example is Olympia Snowe, who is a closet Democrat. She parades as a Republican, but her closet activities consistently show adherence to the modern definition of liberal Democratic principles; e.g. big government and big government spending programs. Those members of Congress who wish to work with smaller government and more fiscal conservatism should never attempt to work with Olympia Snowe. She is a dyed in the wool Liberal Democrat.
Conversely, there are within the Democratic Party a number of classified Democrats, who hold very conservative views on fiscal responsibility. This attitude would automatically limit government size and reduce government spending, if a sufficient number of such believers were able to take control of Congress. If so-called Republicans and Democrats were to minimize party affiliation, it would be possible for a coalition of fiscal conservatives to take such control. There would obviously be a need to resolve differences of opinion in the coalition, but such resolution should be secondary to the main point of taking control and establishing fiscal responsibility.
This communication is intended to recognize the possibilities for House and Senate members to form alliances across party lines on specific bills. It is also intended to inform Republican and Democratic Party voters of the inherent dangers in voting a straight Republican or Democratic ticket.
Republicans are generally characterized as fiscal conservatives, which means they generally like to spend less money on less questionable projects then do Democrats. However, there are various members of the House and Senate, who parade under the name of One Party and yet adhere to the principles of the Other Party. A typical example is Olympia Snowe, who is a closet Democrat. She parades as a Republican, but her closet activities consistently show adherence to the modern definition of liberal Democratic principles; e.g. big government and big government spending programs. Those members of Congress who wish to work with smaller government and more fiscal conservatism should never attempt to work with Olympia Snowe. She is a dyed in the wool Liberal Democrat.
Conversely, there are within the Democratic Party a number of classified Democrats, who hold very conservative views on fiscal responsibility. This attitude would automatically limit government size and reduce government spending, if a sufficient number of such believers were able to take control of Congress. If so-called Republicans and Democrats were to minimize party affiliation, it would be possible for a coalition of fiscal conservatives to take such control. There would obviously be a need to resolve differences of opinion in the coalition, but such resolution should be secondary to the main point of taking control and establishing fiscal responsibility.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Dictators
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "EU Commission Chief Barroso Fears Powerful 'European President'. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sided with smaller member states in trying to restrict the role of the proposed president of the European Council, a new post created by the Lisbon Treaty. Addressing the European Parliament, Mr Barroso chastised MEPs for referring to the post as "president of Europe." (euobserver.com)".
The EU apparently sees the handwriting on the wall by looking to the United States. They see the development of Pres. Obama as a dictator in the US and want to thwart a similar development in the EU. It seems that the EU is not partial to dictators, remembering Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
Congress still has an opportunity to limit the powers of Pres. Obama, before he becomes a full-fledged dictator. Please accept the challenge now. Tomorrow may be too late.
EIN News says, "EU Commission Chief Barroso Fears Powerful 'European President'. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sided with smaller member states in trying to restrict the role of the proposed president of the European Council, a new post created by the Lisbon Treaty. Addressing the European Parliament, Mr Barroso chastised MEPs for referring to the post as "president of Europe." (euobserver.com)".
The EU apparently sees the handwriting on the wall by looking to the United States. They see the development of Pres. Obama as a dictator in the US and want to thwart a similar development in the EU. It seems that the EU is not partial to dictators, remembering Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
Congress still has an opportunity to limit the powers of Pres. Obama, before he becomes a full-fledged dictator. Please accept the challenge now. Tomorrow may be too late.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
World Famine
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "World Must Invest $83 Billion a Year to Be Fed in 2050, UN Food Agency Forecasts. The world needs to invest $83 billion a year in agriculture in developing countries to feed 9.1 billion people in 2050, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation said on Thursday. World agriculture needs massive investments to raise overall output 70 percent over the next 41 years, including almost doubled output in the developing countries to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050, the FAO said. (reuters.com)".
This one involves global warming, healthcare and any other ridiculous notions put forth by eggheads and political opportunists. However, we can analyze this potential famine problem relatively easily.
Developing countries will be primarily unable to help themselves. If they could, we wouldn't have as much famine there as we have at present. This means developed countries would need food handouts, which would only be a temporary solution. The better long-term solution would be for US companies to involve themselves and the locals in food production in the underdeveloped countries. The alternative is to let the locals starve. While that may be a reasonable approach, compassion of the US public will likely not allow it.
If Congress continues with climate control and health care, the cost will create a tremendous burden on the US government, which will force additional currency printing, lead to further inflation, and a significantly decreased value for the US dollar. To partially avoid this, the federal government will likely increase corporate taxes. Simultaneously, the burden of climate control cost, through installation of carbon dioxide sequestration equipment and increased employee health-care costs will hamstring corporate efforts to engage in other developments, such as investment for food production in foreign countries.
Alternatively, if Congress is willing to face the probability of underdeveloped country starvation, the obvious answers are: 1.) Get the US fiscal house in order by greatly reducing federal spending, and 2.) Make it easier for businesses to continue investment and development by not burdening them with global warming and healthcare, and reducing other restrictions wherever possible.
EIN News says, "World Must Invest $83 Billion a Year to Be Fed in 2050, UN Food Agency Forecasts. The world needs to invest $83 billion a year in agriculture in developing countries to feed 9.1 billion people in 2050, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation said on Thursday. World agriculture needs massive investments to raise overall output 70 percent over the next 41 years, including almost doubled output in the developing countries to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050, the FAO said. (reuters.com)".
This one involves global warming, healthcare and any other ridiculous notions put forth by eggheads and political opportunists. However, we can analyze this potential famine problem relatively easily.
Developing countries will be primarily unable to help themselves. If they could, we wouldn't have as much famine there as we have at present. This means developed countries would need food handouts, which would only be a temporary solution. The better long-term solution would be for US companies to involve themselves and the locals in food production in the underdeveloped countries. The alternative is to let the locals starve. While that may be a reasonable approach, compassion of the US public will likely not allow it.
If Congress continues with climate control and health care, the cost will create a tremendous burden on the US government, which will force additional currency printing, lead to further inflation, and a significantly decreased value for the US dollar. To partially avoid this, the federal government will likely increase corporate taxes. Simultaneously, the burden of climate control cost, through installation of carbon dioxide sequestration equipment and increased employee health-care costs will hamstring corporate efforts to engage in other developments, such as investment for food production in foreign countries.
Alternatively, if Congress is willing to face the probability of underdeveloped country starvation, the obvious answers are: 1.) Get the US fiscal house in order by greatly reducing federal spending, and 2.) Make it easier for businesses to continue investment and development by not burdening them with global warming and healthcare, and reducing other restrictions wherever possible.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The EU As a World Power
EIN News says, "EU Draws Up Plans to Establish Itself As 'World Power'. The European Union has drawn up secret plans to establish itself as a global power in its own right with the authority to sign international agreements on behalf of member states. (telegraph.co.uk)".
This is rather a silly statement. The EU is already a World Power. However, I believe the main point of the EU is to increase its "federal" power at the expense of the individual countries. This is similar to what is going on in the US, with Obama's program to establish a dictatorial federal government and minimize power to the individual states.
Let us hope that the EU Administration is successful in their endeavor, because Europe will then have an oligarchic/socialist government, which has historically been known to fail. If the US follows the same route, it will also fail.
However if the US follows a policy of returning to fiscal restraint, with accent on capitalism and minimizing federal government, the US can retain its position of being a world power.
This is rather a silly statement. The EU is already a World Power. However, I believe the main point of the EU is to increase its "federal" power at the expense of the individual countries. This is similar to what is going on in the US, with Obama's program to establish a dictatorial federal government and minimize power to the individual states.
Let us hope that the EU Administration is successful in their endeavor, because Europe will then have an oligarchic/socialist government, which has historically been known to fail. If the US follows the same route, it will also fail.
However if the US follows a policy of returning to fiscal restraint, with accent on capitalism and minimizing federal government, the US can retain its position of being a world power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
