Open Email to House Middle East
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert
Menendez:
Dear Chairmen Ros-Lehtinen and
Menendez,
The NATO combat mission in Afghanistan will end
in 2014, with the theoretical withdrawal of all US troops.
However, the US is trying to negotiate
another deal with Afghan Pres. Karzai wherein the US will continue involvement
in the following ways:
1. The US would have nine bases in Afghanistan
2. The US would have legal jurisdiction over troops and Defense Department
civilians, while contractors would be subject to the Afghan judicial
process
3. US counterterrorism operations would continue in coordination
with the Afghans, with the goal that the Afghan forces should be in the
lead.
4. US troops will not conduct combat operations unless they are
mutually agreed on by the US and Afghans
5. The agreement could allow
10,000 to 15,000 US troops to remain in Afghanistan for 10 years or longer,
although the US says it will likely supply no more than 8000 troops.
Afghan Pres. Karzai appears reluctant to
sign, although he doesn't specify why. Does he want more money?
Does this sound like what we have been led
to believe? Namely, that the US will be leaving Afghanistan?
I suppose the Administration will next come
up with the idea that we need a presence in Afghanistan for an ability to attack
Iran, which it borders on the east. The Administration may also say we need to
be able to get to terrorist forces in Afghanistan.
Both claims would be without
merit.
Turkey borders Iran on the
northwest, and we have NATO bases in Turkey from which to operate bombers
against Iran.
If there are
problems with Turkey, Israel is only 1000 miles from Tehran, and it is highly
likely that the Israelis would be agreeable to our using bases in that country.
We also have airbases in Western European countries and in Great Britain. Tthe
distance from Italy to Tehran is 2100 miles. Germany to Tehran is 2300 miles.
England to Tehran 3300 miles.
We
have 85 B-52 bombers each carrying a bomb load of 70,000 pounds and having a
bombing range of 4800 miles. We have 20 B2 bombers each carrying a bomb load of
40,000 pounds and having a bombing range of 6000 miles. Notice that we have a
number of base opportunities well within the Tehran bombing range for both these
bomber types.
If we need to get to
training camps, administrative complexes or other terrorist consolidations in
Afghanistan, the distance from England to Afghanistan is 3500 miles, well within
the bombing range of both the B-52 and B-2 bombers. In addition, we have drones
for surveillance and limited attack.
The bottom line is that we don't need any
agreement with Afghanistan to have any troops remaining in that country. We
should be OUT, OUT, OUT
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Iran Nuclear
Open Email to US Secretary Of State John Kerry and UN P5 +1
Group:
Dear Sec. Kerry and P5 +1 Group,
The Washington Times says Sec. Kerry left for Geneva to continue negotiations with the UN P5 +1 Group and Iran on a nuclear treaty with Iran. It is said that the U.S. would begin to ease economic sanctions on Tehran in exchange for an agreement from Iranian leaders to halt major sections of their nuclear program and open it to close international scrutiny.
President Reagan once said "Trust but Verify".
I have had personal experience in dealing with the Iranian government. I trusted but was unable to verify. The trust was that they had my money. The inability to verify was that I was unable to recover it, even though I was entitled to it.
I strongly suggest that, in dealing with the Iranian government, the US and others of the UN P5 +1 Group always maintain a hammer over the head of the Iranian Administration and be willing to drop it at a moment's notice.
Dear Sec. Kerry and P5 +1 Group,
The Washington Times says Sec. Kerry left for Geneva to continue negotiations with the UN P5 +1 Group and Iran on a nuclear treaty with Iran. It is said that the U.S. would begin to ease economic sanctions on Tehran in exchange for an agreement from Iranian leaders to halt major sections of their nuclear program and open it to close international scrutiny.
President Reagan once said "Trust but Verify".
I have had personal experience in dealing with the Iranian government. I trusted but was unable to verify. The trust was that they had my money. The inability to verify was that I was unable to recover it, even though I was entitled to it.
I strongly suggest that, in dealing with the Iranian government, the US and others of the UN P5 +1 Group always maintain a hammer over the head of the Iranian Administration and be willing to drop it at a moment's notice.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Obamacare and States Energy
Open
Email to. Neugebauer (TX):Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your newsletter.
OBAMACARE You cosponsored a bill, which allows insurance providers to continue to offer existing health plans through 2014 so families don’t have to face immediate cancellation.
Good political move! You will go on record with the public as being favorable toward the public being able to keep its existing health insurance. However, you likely know that it has no practical application. Insurance companies have already canceled millions of policies, and their is no practical way to reinstate them. In addition, Pres. Obama has threatened to veto the bill.
STATES RIGHTS ON ENERGY
This week you will be voting on H.R. 2728, Protecting States Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. This is commonsense legislation that gives states that already regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the right to continue doing so. This includes Texas.
Again, nice political move, but in this case I don't think the public really cares. In addition, it seems highly unlikely that you will ever get the Senate to cooperate, because of its big government philosophy, and Obama is bound to veto it. Perhaps your best bet is to continue to degrade the public acceptance of Obama and the Democrats because of the healthcare fiasco. If this is pushed hard enough it may be effective in being able to get Republican control in the Senate in the November '14 election. We are already starting to see some of the Democrats in panic on holding their jobs.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Functions
Dear Rep.Neugebauer,
Thank you for your email concerning the abuses of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
You said, "In recent years, I believe the EPA increasingly represents the overreaching arm of a government. In short, the EPA has been tirelessly promulgating environmental regulations without considering the consequences they will have on our economy, and more specifically, jobs."
You also said, "Please rest assured that I. I hope you continue to write me about the issues most important to you."
As a PhD chemist, I occasionally have a lopsided view of human reality. However, I have found through many years of experience that my background serves me well in analyzing various human problems related to chemistry.
Chemical and pharmaceutical companies produce a great variety of chemical compositions, sometimes called compounds. Many of them react with humans and other animals to great advantage in curing diseases and generally improving quality of life. However, there is always a downside in that for every chemical compound that does some good, it always does some bad. In addition, production of those compounds many times involves a release to the environment of toxic byproducts.
It is the function of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine the relative merits of chemical compositions used in treating humans. That is, if a human being takes a "medicine" into his body, is it likely to do more harm than good? That question is generally resolved by using various toxicity test methods. While the FDA can perform many of these tests itself, the basic responsibility for supplying toxicological information lies with the pharmaceutical producer. By using toxicity data and other items that may be related to human health, the FDA may approve a chemical composition for public use or deny its public use for unreasonable danger to users.
Many chemical compositions produced by chemical companies are not intended to be used directly for the purpose of curing disease or otherwise improving the health of the public. These chemicals are generally intended for industrial/commercial use, in order to improve living conditions of the public. For example a chemical compound might be added to a plastic in order to make the plastic more easily formed into usable parts. However, industrial/commercial use chemicals accidentally find their way into the general environment and can negatively affect the health of citizens. An example might be that the previously mentioned chemical compound added to a plastic may slowly leak from the manufactured part and damage the health of citizens breathing the air contaminated with the chemical compound.
The latter is the intended responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That is, the EPA is responsible to determine toxicity of industrial/commercial chemicals and subsequently approve or disapprove their use in manufacturing and commercial availability based upon toxicity data, concentrations in the environment, and other items related indirectly to public health. Therefore, EPA responsibility is similar to that of the FDA, with the exception that it's supposed to approve or disapprove use of chemicals not intended for use as medicines. However, similar protocols can be used. The EPA can determine its own toxicity/concentration data, but it can also require producers to supply the information for EPA's use in approving or disapproving a chemical composition's availability in industrial/commercial operations.
With that description of basic responsibility, we have found that the EPA has expanded its role to restrict production of chemical substances which appear to have no relationship to human health. One example of this is to limit the emission of sulfur dioxide in the normal burning of coal by power plants. It had been found that sulfur dioxide further oxidizes to sulfur trioxide in the atmosphere and when mixed with atmospheric water becomes acid rain. Acid rain is not specifically dangerous to human health, but it has a negative effect on normal lower organism growth in lakes and forests. For this reason, and if one expands the role of the EPA to consider environmental art or beauty, sulfur dioxide control from power plants is logical. However, that seems to me to be a stretch of the EPA original responsibility.
Another example of EPA control of emissions from power plants and other sources is carbon dioxide from burning carbon containing fuels. Again, there is no reason to control carbon dioxide emissions based on any negative effects to human health. However, the EPA claims control is necessary because of indirect effects on human living conditions by reason of global warming. Dissimilar to the acid rain situation, there is no data which indicates carbon dioxide emissions leading to increases of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere have any affect on global warming, with subsequent negative affects on human living conditions. In this case, we can only conclude that the EPA activity on carbon dioxide is only a matter of political significance. We can only speculate on the political significance, but we know that the Obama administration is strongly in support of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and has likely applied considerable pressure to the EPA to accommodate his position.
These last two paragraphs are examples of EPA overreach. The sulfur dioxide situation is semi-justifiable. There seems to be no justification for carbon dioxide control. The question then arises as to what Congress should be doing in order to bring back operation of the EPA to a condition, which Congress originally had in mind when it set up this agency.
This then gets into the general matter of law passage by Congress and the apparent traditional lack of follow-up by Congress to see that the law is working as intended, or whether it needs modification. The Toxic Substances Control Act originally set up the EPA as the operating entity. Of the various House committees, I could not find any directly related to toxic substances control or the environment in general. The closest I could get was the House Oversight. Committee, Chaired by Darrell Issa (CA).
My search for a Senate Committee was somewhat more fruitful, but switched me over to another law, the Clean Air Act. According to Wikipedia, the Clean Air Act is designed to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations to protect the public from airborne contaminants known to be hazardous to human health. The Senate has a committee on Environment and Public Works. It is chaired by Barbara Boxer (CA). It has a subcommittee named Clean Air, chaired by Thomas Carper (DE). It seems to me that Sen. Carper should be asking the EPA what information it has that carbon dioxide is "hazardous to human health".
I later found that Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, has held a forum on the Clean Air Act. He probably should also be asking the EPA what information it has that carbon dioxide is "hazardous to human health".
This brings us back to you, Rep. Neugebauer. You said that you will do everything you can to keep the EPA in line. I presume you will be in contact with Rep. Ed Whitfield and Sen. Thomas Carper to see what you can collectively do to get the EPA back on a direct course to fulfill its obligations and avoid taking on projects with political overtones that have no scientific basis.
Thank you for your email concerning the abuses of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
You said, "In recent years, I believe the EPA increasingly represents the overreaching arm of a government. In short, the EPA has been tirelessly promulgating environmental regulations without considering the consequences they will have on our economy, and more specifically, jobs."
You also said, "Please rest assured that I. I hope you continue to write me about the issues most important to you."
As a PhD chemist, I occasionally have a lopsided view of human reality. However, I have found through many years of experience that my background serves me well in analyzing various human problems related to chemistry.
Chemical and pharmaceutical companies produce a great variety of chemical compositions, sometimes called compounds. Many of them react with humans and other animals to great advantage in curing diseases and generally improving quality of life. However, there is always a downside in that for every chemical compound that does some good, it always does some bad. In addition, production of those compounds many times involves a release to the environment of toxic byproducts.
It is the function of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine the relative merits of chemical compositions used in treating humans. That is, if a human being takes a "medicine" into his body, is it likely to do more harm than good? That question is generally resolved by using various toxicity test methods. While the FDA can perform many of these tests itself, the basic responsibility for supplying toxicological information lies with the pharmaceutical producer. By using toxicity data and other items that may be related to human health, the FDA may approve a chemical composition for public use or deny its public use for unreasonable danger to users.
Many chemical compositions produced by chemical companies are not intended to be used directly for the purpose of curing disease or otherwise improving the health of the public. These chemicals are generally intended for industrial/commercial use, in order to improve living conditions of the public. For example a chemical compound might be added to a plastic in order to make the plastic more easily formed into usable parts. However, industrial/commercial use chemicals accidentally find their way into the general environment and can negatively affect the health of citizens. An example might be that the previously mentioned chemical compound added to a plastic may slowly leak from the manufactured part and damage the health of citizens breathing the air contaminated with the chemical compound.
The latter is the intended responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That is, the EPA is responsible to determine toxicity of industrial/commercial chemicals and subsequently approve or disapprove their use in manufacturing and commercial availability based upon toxicity data, concentrations in the environment, and other items related indirectly to public health. Therefore, EPA responsibility is similar to that of the FDA, with the exception that it's supposed to approve or disapprove use of chemicals not intended for use as medicines. However, similar protocols can be used. The EPA can determine its own toxicity/concentration data, but it can also require producers to supply the information for EPA's use in approving or disapproving a chemical composition's availability in industrial/commercial operations.
With that description of basic responsibility, we have found that the EPA has expanded its role to restrict production of chemical substances which appear to have no relationship to human health. One example of this is to limit the emission of sulfur dioxide in the normal burning of coal by power plants. It had been found that sulfur dioxide further oxidizes to sulfur trioxide in the atmosphere and when mixed with atmospheric water becomes acid rain. Acid rain is not specifically dangerous to human health, but it has a negative effect on normal lower organism growth in lakes and forests. For this reason, and if one expands the role of the EPA to consider environmental art or beauty, sulfur dioxide control from power plants is logical. However, that seems to me to be a stretch of the EPA original responsibility.
Another example of EPA control of emissions from power plants and other sources is carbon dioxide from burning carbon containing fuels. Again, there is no reason to control carbon dioxide emissions based on any negative effects to human health. However, the EPA claims control is necessary because of indirect effects on human living conditions by reason of global warming. Dissimilar to the acid rain situation, there is no data which indicates carbon dioxide emissions leading to increases of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere have any affect on global warming, with subsequent negative affects on human living conditions. In this case, we can only conclude that the EPA activity on carbon dioxide is only a matter of political significance. We can only speculate on the political significance, but we know that the Obama administration is strongly in support of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and has likely applied considerable pressure to the EPA to accommodate his position.
These last two paragraphs are examples of EPA overreach. The sulfur dioxide situation is semi-justifiable. There seems to be no justification for carbon dioxide control. The question then arises as to what Congress should be doing in order to bring back operation of the EPA to a condition, which Congress originally had in mind when it set up this agency.
This then gets into the general matter of law passage by Congress and the apparent traditional lack of follow-up by Congress to see that the law is working as intended, or whether it needs modification. The Toxic Substances Control Act originally set up the EPA as the operating entity. Of the various House committees, I could not find any directly related to toxic substances control or the environment in general. The closest I could get was the House Oversight. Committee, Chaired by Darrell Issa (CA).
My search for a Senate Committee was somewhat more fruitful, but switched me over to another law, the Clean Air Act. According to Wikipedia, the Clean Air Act is designed to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations to protect the public from airborne contaminants known to be hazardous to human health. The Senate has a committee on Environment and Public Works. It is chaired by Barbara Boxer (CA). It has a subcommittee named Clean Air, chaired by Thomas Carper (DE). It seems to me that Sen. Carper should be asking the EPA what information it has that carbon dioxide is "hazardous to human health".
I later found that Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, has held a forum on the Clean Air Act. He probably should also be asking the EPA what information it has that carbon dioxide is "hazardous to human health".
This brings us back to you, Rep. Neugebauer. You said that you will do everything you can to keep the EPA in line. I presume you will be in contact with Rep. Ed Whitfield and Sen. Thomas Carper to see what you can collectively do to get the EPA back on a direct course to fulfill its obligations and avoid taking on projects with political overtones that have no scientific basis.
We Need Lead for Bullets
Open Email to Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY):
Dear Sen. McConnell,
You have been previously quoted as saying, "“The Second Amendment is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, and we should protect it wherever we can.” As a refresher for those who may not be familiar with the Second Amendment [to the Constitution], it reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In simple terms, NO GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROL. However, we should be clear that while "arms" and "guns" are synonymous, without ammunition, they are merely clubs.
As you know, Senator McConnell, the Obama administration and various state governments have done about everything they can to limit the public availability of firearms. However, you and your Republican Associates in the House have strongly resisted this, with some success. In spite of those efforts, we already have significant rights infringement through licensing, etc..
The latest move toward infringement on the part of the Obama administration is an end run attacking ammunition sources to the people. This has been done through the EPA setting a standard for sulfur dioxide control by a lead smelter involving 10 times the previous restriction. The only lead smelting plant remaining in the US, from previous attacks by the EPA, is the Herculaneum plant at Doe Run, Missouri. With the new EPA restriction on sulfur dioxide emission, that plant will shut down and there will be no domestic source of lead to sell to ammunition manufacturers in the US. Since the federal government controls imports, ammunition manufacturers will be deprived of lead for bullets, and the public will be without ammunition for its firearms.
The EPA has been after the Herculaneum plant for its releases of lead dust and sulfur dioxide contaminating the environment. Ingestion of lead by human beings causes mental problems and sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere leads to acid rain. The company has responded to the lead dust problem with control measures and has bought up surrounding residential properties so that local residents are not exposed. It still emits 42,000 tons of sulfur dioxide annually to the atmosphere. This seems to be the main present concern of the EPA.
However putting the Herculaneum plant sulfur dioxide emissions in perspective, we can compare it with sulfur dioxide emissions of all US power plants, which have been significantly reduced over the years, because of the acid rain problem. In 2012, power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide were still 3.3 million tons. At 42,000 tons sulfur dioxide emission for the Herculaneum plant, this is only 1.3% of the power plant emissions. I believe the Herculaneum plant sulfur dioxide emission is insignificant, because of its specialized application as the single lead producer in the US and an exemption should be made for it.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American. He recently had this to say, "Congress must be called upon to immediately defund the EPA and repeal the act that created it, as well as to refuse to ratify any treaty — the Arms Trade Treaty and the Trans-Pacific Partnership — that infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Once these basic rights are surrendered to unelected, unaccountable international bodies, those rights will be regarded as fungible and revocable at the will of global bureaucrats bent on finally eliminating the Constitution."
I believe Wolverton's request is somewhat excessive. We need the EPA to handle chemical contamination of the environment, as previously recognized in its development. But, it has gotten completely out of control to the extent that it has become a political weapon for the Obama administration. More practically, I suggest Congress make an exception concerning contaminant emissions for the Herculaneum Plant at Doe Run, for the simple reason of its uniqueness as the single lead producer in the US and the need for lead to manufacture ammunition for public firearms.
Dear Sen. McConnell,
You have been previously quoted as saying, "“The Second Amendment is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, and we should protect it wherever we can.” As a refresher for those who may not be familiar with the Second Amendment [to the Constitution], it reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In simple terms, NO GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROL. However, we should be clear that while "arms" and "guns" are synonymous, without ammunition, they are merely clubs.
As you know, Senator McConnell, the Obama administration and various state governments have done about everything they can to limit the public availability of firearms. However, you and your Republican Associates in the House have strongly resisted this, with some success. In spite of those efforts, we already have significant rights infringement through licensing, etc..
The latest move toward infringement on the part of the Obama administration is an end run attacking ammunition sources to the people. This has been done through the EPA setting a standard for sulfur dioxide control by a lead smelter involving 10 times the previous restriction. The only lead smelting plant remaining in the US, from previous attacks by the EPA, is the Herculaneum plant at Doe Run, Missouri. With the new EPA restriction on sulfur dioxide emission, that plant will shut down and there will be no domestic source of lead to sell to ammunition manufacturers in the US. Since the federal government controls imports, ammunition manufacturers will be deprived of lead for bullets, and the public will be without ammunition for its firearms.
The EPA has been after the Herculaneum plant for its releases of lead dust and sulfur dioxide contaminating the environment. Ingestion of lead by human beings causes mental problems and sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere leads to acid rain. The company has responded to the lead dust problem with control measures and has bought up surrounding residential properties so that local residents are not exposed. It still emits 42,000 tons of sulfur dioxide annually to the atmosphere. This seems to be the main present concern of the EPA.
However putting the Herculaneum plant sulfur dioxide emissions in perspective, we can compare it with sulfur dioxide emissions of all US power plants, which have been significantly reduced over the years, because of the acid rain problem. In 2012, power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide were still 3.3 million tons. At 42,000 tons sulfur dioxide emission for the Herculaneum plant, this is only 1.3% of the power plant emissions. I believe the Herculaneum plant sulfur dioxide emission is insignificant, because of its specialized application as the single lead producer in the US and an exemption should be made for it.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American. He recently had this to say, "Congress must be called upon to immediately defund the EPA and repeal the act that created it, as well as to refuse to ratify any treaty — the Arms Trade Treaty and the Trans-Pacific Partnership — that infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Once these basic rights are surrendered to unelected, unaccountable international bodies, those rights will be regarded as fungible and revocable at the will of global bureaucrats bent on finally eliminating the Constitution."
I believe Wolverton's request is somewhat excessive. We need the EPA to handle chemical contamination of the environment, as previously recognized in its development. But, it has gotten completely out of control to the extent that it has become a political weapon for the Obama administration. More practically, I suggest Congress make an exception concerning contaminant emissions for the Herculaneum Plant at Doe Run, for the simple reason of its uniqueness as the single lead producer in the US and the need for lead to manufacture ammunition for public firearms.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Social Security Designation
A Political Associate brought to my attention that
direct deposit Social Security payments are referred to as Federal Benefits. He
strongly opposes this latter designation. He says that Social Security is not a
benefit. It is earned income. Not only did we all contribute to Social Security
but our employers did too. He wants the federal government to discontinue
referring to Social Security as a "benefit". He wants it referred to as "Earned
Retirement Income".
There is some merit to his claim, since the IRS taxes Social Security as "Earned Income".
On the other hand, Snopes says that "Federal Benefit Payments" applies to a broad class of payments made to (or on behalf of) individuals under federal government programs — everything from Social Security Disability Insurance to Medicare to farm subsidies are considered "federal benefit payments." The fact that workers themselves contribute much of the money that goes into the Social Security retirement fund doesn't affect its classification as a benefit.
In addition, various dictionaries indicate a benefit as a payment or gift made by an employer, the state, or an insurance company. Synonyms are indicated to be: social security, welfare, assistance, employment insurance, unemployment, food stamps; charity,donations, gifts, financial assistance. Associated words are: hand, lift, pick-me-up; support, sustenance; blessing,godsend, windfall; recourse, refuge, resort, resource.
However, we should also consider the legal term, "quid pro quo", which means something that is given to a person or done for a person in return for something he has given to or done in return. In other words, there is a fair exchange. In the case of a Social Security payment, it would qualify as a "quid pro quo", since a person would be receiving a payment on something for which he has previously paid. That could similarly apply to unemployment insurance payments, but not to food stamps, for which no previous payment was made by the recipient.
In essence, we have been so entangled in socialistic concepts over the last hundred years or so that Snopes and even the dictionaries have decided to ignore the difference between "something for something" and "something for nothing".
As a Constitutional Republic convert and a believer in private property rights, I am personally on the side of "something for something". That is, if I do a job under contract, I expect to get paid. On the other hand, I also recognize "something for nothing". That is, if I decide to send a friend a basket of fruit for Christmas, I can do so as a gift without any anticipation of being repaid.
I think we have sunk so deeply into socialistic concepts that it is difficult to revert to the realism of differences. However, it is never too late. I agree with my Political Associate that Social Security payments should be designated as Earned Retirement Income and not generally dumped into the mixed category of "Federal Benefit Payments".
I submit that recommendation to the appropriate Subcommittee Chairmen in the House and Senate, as follows:
The House Ways And Means Committee, chaired by Dave Camp (MI) has seven subcommittees. The Social Security Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes legislation and issues related to Social Security's retirement. Sam Johnson (TX) is the Subcommittee Chairman.
The Senate Committee on Finance, Chaired by Max Baucus (MT) has six subcommittees. The Social Security Subcommittee Chairman is Sherrod Brown (OH).
There is some merit to his claim, since the IRS taxes Social Security as "Earned Income".
On the other hand, Snopes says that "Federal Benefit Payments" applies to a broad class of payments made to (or on behalf of) individuals under federal government programs — everything from Social Security Disability Insurance to Medicare to farm subsidies are considered "federal benefit payments." The fact that workers themselves contribute much of the money that goes into the Social Security retirement fund doesn't affect its classification as a benefit.
In addition, various dictionaries indicate a benefit as a payment or gift made by an employer, the state, or an insurance company. Synonyms are indicated to be: social security, welfare, assistance, employment insurance, unemployment, food stamps; charity,donations, gifts, financial assistance. Associated words are: hand, lift, pick-me-up; support, sustenance; blessing,godsend, windfall; recourse, refuge, resort, resource.
However, we should also consider the legal term, "quid pro quo", which means something that is given to a person or done for a person in return for something he has given to or done in return. In other words, there is a fair exchange. In the case of a Social Security payment, it would qualify as a "quid pro quo", since a person would be receiving a payment on something for which he has previously paid. That could similarly apply to unemployment insurance payments, but not to food stamps, for which no previous payment was made by the recipient.
In essence, we have been so entangled in socialistic concepts over the last hundred years or so that Snopes and even the dictionaries have decided to ignore the difference between "something for something" and "something for nothing".
As a Constitutional Republic convert and a believer in private property rights, I am personally on the side of "something for something". That is, if I do a job under contract, I expect to get paid. On the other hand, I also recognize "something for nothing". That is, if I decide to send a friend a basket of fruit for Christmas, I can do so as a gift without any anticipation of being repaid.
I think we have sunk so deeply into socialistic concepts that it is difficult to revert to the realism of differences. However, it is never too late. I agree with my Political Associate that Social Security payments should be designated as Earned Retirement Income and not generally dumped into the mixed category of "Federal Benefit Payments".
I submit that recommendation to the appropriate Subcommittee Chairmen in the House and Senate, as follows:
The House Ways And Means Committee, chaired by Dave Camp (MI) has seven subcommittees. The Social Security Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes legislation and issues related to Social Security's retirement. Sam Johnson (TX) is the Subcommittee Chairman.
The Senate Committee on Finance, Chaired by Max Baucus (MT) has six subcommittees. The Social Security Subcommittee Chairman is Sherrod Brown (OH).
Republican Advantage
Open Email to Republican Senators:
Dear Republican Senators,
According to the Washington Times, the House passed the Upton bill, 261 to 157, despite a veto threat from Mr. Obama. The Upton bill lets Americans keep, for one year, health plans that do not comply with Obamacare. 39 Democrats voted for the bill, presumably in an attempt to keep their jobs.
This bill may not go anywhere, because of the Obama veto threat and impracticality with respect to the insurance companies, but it has political significance. It would tend to make Pres. Obama look bad if he vetoes a bill letting Americans keep their previous healthcare another year, which he has said over and over again that they would be entitled to do.
However, the key point of this message is that the Senate must now follow up with a similar bill. Since 39 Democrats in the house were willing to defect, there are likely many more Democrats in the Senate willing to also defect. Senate passage of a bill similar to that of the House will appreciably increase public perception of the Republican cause and further weaken the Democrats.
Dear Republican Senators,
According to the Washington Times, the House passed the Upton bill, 261 to 157, despite a veto threat from Mr. Obama. The Upton bill lets Americans keep, for one year, health plans that do not comply with Obamacare. 39 Democrats voted for the bill, presumably in an attempt to keep their jobs.
This bill may not go anywhere, because of the Obama veto threat and impracticality with respect to the insurance companies, but it has political significance. It would tend to make Pres. Obama look bad if he vetoes a bill letting Americans keep their previous healthcare another year, which he has said over and over again that they would be entitled to do.
However, the key point of this message is that the Senate must now follow up with a similar bill. Since 39 Democrats in the house were willing to defect, there are likely many more Democrats in the Senate willing to also defect. Senate passage of a bill similar to that of the House will appreciably increase public perception of the Republican cause and further weaken the Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
