IRS Duplicity

The Washington Times reports that an Internal Revenue Service employee was suspended by the IRS for 100 days for using his job at the agency’s help line to try to convince callers to vote for President Obama,
An excellent political move on the part of the IRS! In so doing, the IRS is saying, “See how clean and fair we are?” Notice that the employee was not fired. He was only given a 3 ½-month suspension, and even though it doesn’t say so, the chances are that he continues to receive his salary.
But the key point is that in the overall context of the IRS being non-political, that is a drop in the bucket compared to recent information that Lois Lerner had told IRS employees to give no information to Congress.
Remember that Congress is the boss. It set up the IRS and has an Oversight Committee to assure that the IRS is continuing to do the job as Congress had originally requested. When Congress is shut off from information from their employees, the IRS is an obviously autocratic operation.
IRS, who are you trying to fool with a 3 ½-month suspension of a single employee; yourself, the public, or Congress?

Illegal Immigrant Children

Open Fax to Rep. Michael McCall:

Dear Rep. McCall,

          I read your statement concerning the influx of illegal immigrant children at our southern borders.

          I am pleased to suggest that you appear to be generally on the right track in handling the problem. However, I suggest more specifics.

          Any new attempts at entry by illegal immigrant children at the southern border should be immediately declined. Don’t let them in! For those who may be confused, this is not a humanitarian problem. Since these children have been able to come from their homes in Central America, they are obviously not starving, in medical debilitation or showing evidence of having been physically abused in their home countries. Just deny them entrance! As soon as you allow them to cross the border and enter into a detention facility, we are faced with tremendous problems of being physically unable to contact their families, with justification that the families are legitimate, or expect to handle any legal problems in court. I repeat, do not let them in!

          Those that have already entered and are in detention facilities, they should be rounded up, put on available school buses and driven back to their home countries. This will require transit visas through Mexico. The Mexican government will be obligated to supply such bases, since it is only the reverse of how they arrived at our southern borders in the first place. If the Mexican government denies transit visas, it should be highly publicized that the Mexican government has been instrumental in attacking our southern borders. Under those conditions, give up the transit by bus program and fly them to their home countries, bypassing Mexican airspace if necessary.

          Notice that I don’t want to confuse the issue by engaging in other aspects of a discussion. All of that is an important. Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants and should not be allowed to enter or stay in the US, if they have already entered. Forget subsequent needs for their education, the fact that they may grow up to be Democratic voters, etc. Concentrate only on the fact that we do not allow immigrants to enter into this country illegally, no matter what their ages.

Communal Cars

          One of our political associates referred me to an article by Page and Brin, who are the cofounders of Google. The article basically covers how a “brave New World” should be, but there is a specific reference to elimination of private ownership on automobiles, with a substitution of communal cars that would give door-to-door service. The reference is http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-brin-we-want-to-end-individual-car-ownership/?tag=nl.e497&s_cid=e497&ttag=e497&ftag=CAD5920658.

          Our political associate asked for my comments, which are as follows:

          We already have communal transportation in the form of airplanes, trains, buses, taxis and rental cars. Fortunately, most of these systems are not owned by the government, which is why they work reasonably well. Those portions that are owned by government are susceptible to political manipulation, fraud, and general inefficiency through lack of incentive by government managers. Consider the inefficiencies and high cost to taxpayers of the Amtrak system. These are also the basic reasons why socialism in general doesn’t work.

          One man says he has an hour-long commute to and from work each day, involving two bus rides and a 15-minute walk at either end. He would welcome the door-to-door service a self-driving communal car would offer.

          He hasn’t considered that the greater the service the greater the cost. If he is thinking that the cost of the operation would be on government, he has to consider adding 50% for inefficiency, all of which will be reflected in his taxes, so he really pays in the long run. He would also eliminate his half-hour walk each day, which would probably knock off 10 years of his life. Would he like to shorten his life? If he still likes the idea, he can now hire a private vehicle and driver to pick him up at his house and take him to work and back. It would cost him a bundle, but no more than the total cost to somebody if government pays for the service through taxes

          If he doesn’t like the bus rides and the walking, he has another alternative. He can quit his job and arrange to go on disability. He can continue a reasonable lifestyle with food stamps, housing subsidies, etc. he can also get door-to-door transportation by city minibuses to take him to the mall and back. He can have a great time shopping for shoelaces and other low-cost items. When the minibus takes him home, he can spend the rest of the day watching television or calling his friends on a cell phone supplied by government.

          Perhaps there are many people who would like the above lifestyle, but I believe it is not inherent in the human spirit. At least not for me. If I want door-to-door service, I’ll pay for it. If I can’t pay for it, I’ll do without. In no way will I ever expect someone else to pay for it through a tax program.

The Power of Harry Reid

The Washington Times has a long article on the power of Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. The article involves mostly a complaint that Harry Reid shows partiality toward Democratic proposals and suppresses Republicans proposals.
Complaints are cheap and many, but let's look at the facts.
The majority of the Senate is Democratic, and this situation was imposed by the votes of the American public. With that, a person, such as Harry Reid, automatically becomes the Democratic majority leader and is in control of the Senate. It may be that the American public did not want that, but based upon the vote, there is no indication it did not.
If the American public wants an elimination of the Democratic majority and Harry Reid, as majority leader, it can easily do so in the next November election. There are only four months to wait.
Meanwhile, one of the complaints is that just 14 Senate bills have been signed into law so far this year. That’s nine fewer than at the same point in 2013. Why this is a complaint, I'm not sure. I interpret all laws is restrictive. Even those giving special advantages to some persons, simultaneously do damage to others who have to pay for it. The fewer laws we generate now the better, and in fact, we should be undoing many of the laws previously passed. The fact that Harry Reid has been able to cut back the number of new laws is favorable. The only problem is that few new laws are likely disadvantageous to the development of the country.

Shark Attack

          Those of you who read me know that I take serious objection to most of the actions that Pres. Obama has taken as President. It is apparent to me that his objective is to convert the US to a second rate country both morally and financially.

          Since he has been elected by the people and subsequently reelected, the question has always been, “How did this happen?” We previously passed this off as the action of low information voters and the ability of the Democratic Party to unify them into a controlling voting block.

          However, there is another group to consider in the voting. That is sophisticated intellectuals. These are people who are reasonably intelligent and have had educations in our colleges and universities. But, we need to consider whether those educations have led to the individual’s ability to apply logic and proper judgment.

          I was listening to Fox News this morning, which was covering the episode of a swimmer in California being bitten by a white shark. Most of the news media, including Fox, have characterized this as a shark attack. However, the person being interviewed claimed that this was NOT a shark attack.

          That person being interviewed is a perfect example of the sophisticated intellectual, who comes to a wrong conclusion, presumably because he does not apply logic and have a clear understanding of the English language.

          Almost anybody, except our sophisticated intellectuals, will agree that if a shark bites a man, it is a shark attack. One may argue about why the shark attacked, but the fact remains that it was a shark attack.

          Since our sophisticated intellectuals cannot recognize facts and call them as same, it is apparent that if there are enough of them, they have a strong influence on the vote of who will be President, and their votes will not be favorable to the continued development of our country.

          Are there any suggestions on how we can correct this situation?

Washington Redskins Trademark

          I am disappointed in the US Patent and Trademark Office. I had thought that it was one of the few government agencies that was doing its job rather than operating on a political bias. I was wrong.

          The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruled last month that the name of the Washington Redskins was disparaging to American Indians and canceled the trademark registration.

US

          The Washington Redskins is appealing the decision. Let’s hope it works out favorably and they can continue to have trademark protection, as they once had and which is completely justifiable under the regulations of the P&T office. There have been no complaints from the American public concerning the name, including no objections from American Indians themselves. 

Earmarks

Open Email Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,

          I saw your recent statement on your opposition to earmarks. If we take this in the right context, I am all for it.

          However, we must avoid confusion.

          Wikipedia says an earmark is a provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in their home state or district.

          While we obviously will want to be as specific as possible on funding allocations for needed government operations, we want to avoid at all costs pork spending for home states or districts.

          Therefore, we will need earmarks for use in legitimate funding and avoid earmarks for pork projects. This will take some attention on the part of House members to differentiate between the two.