It's time to be scared....

I just read this article from the National Journal (yes, it used to be a 'dreaded' left leaning paper, but now basically covers Washington with a jaundiced and mostly non-partisan eye - as you'll note when you go to their site) which simply states the obvious truth: Neither side can budge in any direction that will truly help the middle class. You can read more about this over at my blog.

Obama's sticking point isn't Medicare, SS, or SSD - it's not even repealing the Bush tax cuts - all of which are sticking points for most of us as we watch this ridiculous battle of back-room politics. Obama's real sticking point is the date by which they're allowed to raise the ceiling on the debt. The Republicans were pushing for 6 months (that would be the old guard, you know, the GOP we used to know?) but Boehner's being overruled (duh) by the young guard (that would be the Tea Party some people only think they know) because they want only a 3 month extension on any raising of the ceiling. And Obama's date? If you think for a minute, you'll get it...got it? Yeah, 2013 as in AFTER the elections, at which time he hopes to win back the House and retain the Senate (BTW: I've got news for you, President Obama, if you sell us down the river, no one anyone expects will end up in the White House come 2012)

The article lays it out very plainly, showing the highlights of both parties respective plans regarding the debt. It also states, quite obviously, that yes, the House will pass a bill that the Tea Party gives its stamp of approval on, which will be considerably tougher than Boehner's, but the Senate won't pass it - if they vote at all on it - they could just let it sit there. On the flip side, the Senate (in the form of Reid and President Obama) will come up with their version of a plan, which will be filibustered in the Senate and thus die as sure a death as the Tea Party's plan. So where does that leave us come August 2nd (a date as arbitrary as the debt ceiling itself)?

Only God knows and apparently, he's only talking to Michelle Bachman (sorry, couldn't resist that).

One thing that seems certain, and that's the fact that Obama seems unwilling to use the 14th Amendment to raise the ceiling himself - or shall we say he's been advised by his lawyers not to, even though Clinton has showed him the way, via the Section 4, which reads:

"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

So how does that help the President avoid the 'death of all plans at the hands of each Party'? Well, the 'debt' referred to is those monies incurred for, "...payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
(PS: isn't it odd that the real purpose of the 14th Amendment is about citizenship, slaves and nationalization? Anyway, take time to read it and don't worry, this link came off the Senate website)

Now, to me, based on the above, is that the only part of the debt that can't be questioned (or raised) would be those incurred in suppressing an insurrection or rebellion (can we say Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and so on?) but all other debts appear open for the President to raise. So what about the last part, where the US nor any State can assume or pay any debt or obligation that was incurred as a result of an insurrection or rebellion against the US, that those shall be held illegal and void? Could it be argued that the Tea Party, in their refusal to pass any legislation of our current President are actually revolting? Could this be considered an insurrection by the Tea Party? And if so, does that not also give the President an out? But would it be wise to use it? Would that not finally and irrevocably tear both parties apart more than even the Republican Party is already split? And if he uses the first half, it seems that since the Military Defense budget, which takes up the majority of our debt would be left alone - which would not sit nicely with the Republicans or the military.

BTW: Info on the debt can be found here and, once on the page, go to "Detailed Functional Tables FY10" and click on the links that say "XLS" - you do need Excel to view the budget for 2010 - then go through the budget and try to decide what you'd cut, what items don't have enough money budgeted, then look at the difference between "Discretionary" items and the "Mandatory" items before deciding if you'd switch any of them! It's very interesting and again, imho, part of our responsibility to know something about it!

Maybe you'd like a peek into our taxes and how they're broken down? Check it out under the cut.




Corporate taxes make up only 9% of our revenue while our personal income taxes provide 42%. What we pay into Social Security, etc, equals 40%, but here's the thing: Even the Tea Party says that SS, etc. account for 20% of our spending (along with the Defense Budget, but no one can really pin that budgetary number down, surprise-surprise - but I'm betting it's way more than 20%!).

These are the things we Americans should know - should discover for ourselves and ensure that where we go, is legit. For instance, when I first started trying to find the budget, Google sent me to a sight that said it was the "governmentspending.com" site which sounded damn official. Until I got there and, in spite of the American flag with partial wording implying the site was part of the government sites, alas, no. The clue that it was fake happened to be a link on the left that said, "Tea Party Briefing" and of course, the fact that the first thing on the page was an analysis of the Federal budget for 2012 and Paul Ryan's budget!!! So yeah, make sure you're neither on a right wing site or a left. ALL major government sites (like the WH, Senate, House) have similar banners (blue with a particular logo) and the US Gov site has it's own logo as seen below:







As you can see, they're hard to mistake, but if you don't know what to look for, it's easy to be pulled into the wrong site. :(




You've been asked,

by no less than the President himself, to call and write our legislature regarding the Debt issue, so what more do you need?

To call the White House, here's the comment number: 202-456-1111

To call The House of Representatives, use this number: (202) 224-3121

It's too late to call today since the hours are 8am-5pm EST, but you can call tomorrow and today, you can still send your comment via this page at the White House website and/or this page to contact your representative in the House of Representatives. It's a simple process to find out who to write (pull down menus for states and/or add your zip code) to. Make sure you contact John Boehner (as I did yesterday) to encourage him to stand up in the name of HONOR, to stop acting like Pinocchio to Eric Cantor's version of J. Worthington Foulfellow and Paul Ryan's Gideon in order to DO THE RIGHT THING, career be damned. Boehner's first allegiance is to this country; to his constituents - NOT to a faction of his party that isn't even legitimate, although they're trying hard to become legit - to, in fact - take over the Party.         

Anyway, I've now written the President twice, phoned once (will phone again tomorrow), and yes, I've called John Boehner and emailed him and will continue to do so - and my message to John?

"STOP LISTENING TO THE TEA PARTY - THEY'RE NOT EVEN A RECOGNIZED ENTITY AND YET THEY'RE CONTROLLING REPUBLICANS WITH THE USE OF FEAR - AND IT'S TIME TO STOP THEM - BY TELLING YOUR REPRESENTATIVES THAT YOUR VOTE CAN'T BE BOUGHT BY THE WEALTHY FEW BEHIND THE MAJORITY OF THE TEA PARTY!"

And my message to the President? 

"GIVE UP THE BELIEF THAT A BI-PARTISAN GOVERNMENT IS STILL POSSIBLE! THEY'VE TOLD YOU IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THE HOUSE WILL 'JUST SAY NO' TO EVERYTHING YOU PUT ON THE TABLE AS LONG AS YOU'RE PRESIDENT."

The good news is that according to the news, many folks are, indeed, doing as President Obama asked; writing and phoning. BUT, the majority are asking all of them to compromise in order to end this. That is not something I can support because the Republicans, as led by the new Tea Party junior Congressmen and some senior Congressmen, consider total capitulation as the only compromise they'll accept. Complete, total surrender by Obama and the Democratic Party. And the scary part? Obama has already offered an olive branch of a compromise that includes cuts in the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare/Medical and Social Security Disability. If he's willing to cut our benefits in spite of the one, singular message America has been sending...
 

"DON'T TOUCH OUR SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE!"

...then he's obviously willing to accept just about anything when the tires finally hit the road, which means I'm beginning to doubt that he'll hold firm on his refusal to keep from taxing the wealthy - in other words, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - which is one of the primary items on which the Republicans refuse to budge.

When the Republicans use the broad - and scary - term, "Obama wants to raise taxes!" they're not referring to OUR taxes (which, btw, are the lowest in ages and should be raised) but the Bush Tax Cuts for their rich supporters (meaning people earning a quarter of a million dollars a year!).

And speaking of John Boehner (again) - do you think he recently walked out on the President because HE wanted to? Not hardly. Boehner is fighting for his career; knows Cantor is just waiting to step into his position as Speaker. And that's looking all too possible since even though Obama did put the Big Three on the table, he also included the elimination of certain tax breaks for the rich and the closing of corporate tax loopholes. If Boehner were to accept? Oh, yeah, his job would be toast.

If he doesn't toe the Tea Party line, Eric Cantor will take over as House Speaker - hell, he's practically drooling now because one more misstep and John is out on his ass. And his seat in the House? Well, the next time he's up for re-election, he'll lose because the Tea Party will see to it. Which, btw, is where YOU come in.

If you live in Ohio (even if you don't live in his 8th District), you can call and write and tell him that if he settles this like a man of honor and trustworthiness, you WILL vote for him no matter what the Tea Party says! And btw: If you don't believe Boehner is misusing the phrase about Obama wanting to raise taxes, thus scaring us all to death, just take a look at his page and you'll see a changing headline by the video section withone of those headlines having been copied and pasted here: 

 

Boehner on Debt Limit: White House Insisted on Raising Taxes, Moved Goalposts

There's your proof. We all know President Obama is NOT insisting on "Raising Taxes", which, as stated in the above manner, leads Americans to believe he wants to raise taxes on all of us, and thus qualifies as the scare statement of all scare statements since the ridiculous "Death Panels" that surrounded the false rhetoric around the Health Care Reform Bill. In reality, don't we really know Obama simply means dealing with the Bush Tax Cuts - and even going further in ending the free ride the wealthy - the really wealthy - are currently enjoying? Of course we do. But the wealthy, like David Koch (of the Koch Brothers who ranked 18th on Forbes Billionaires List but if you combined their individual wealth - $22billion apiece, they'd rank FOURTH) who founded the Tea Party organization called,  Americans for Prosperity (AFP), well, it's those men who are soundly against the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts or any other taxes on the rich or of the closing of any loopholes for the rich. And these guys control men like Eric Cantor and thus threaten good Republicans everywhere.

You can disbelieve it, call me a liberal and by implication, that I'm simply repeating leftist lies, but all of this can easily be researched, as I did. AFP outspent the Democratic Governors Association by more than three to one in the 2010 primaries and elections - a fact that scares the hell out of me. The goal of the Tea Party is to take over the Republican Party, completely, and it's not one that currently is being stopped. And do they care if we go into default? If the nothing happens by August 2nd? Of course not. In fact, it might even be their real goal. These are some of the richest men in the WORLD and they're protected; have taken the steps to ensure that protection. In fact, they may even prosper should we go into default!

And I'm not alone in believing this. I happen to read alter.net and stumbled upon an article by Adele M. Stan, the Washington Bureau Chief for Alter.net who wrote that we're tempted, "...when assessing the showdown over the debt ceiling that is bringing the United States to the brink of defaulting on its debt, to view the confrontation in terms of Republicans vs. Democrats, liberals vs. conservatives, Obama vs. Boehner." But, "What we're really witnessing, though, is a ruthless power-grab by the architects of the Tea Party movement for control of the Republican Party. And if they have to destroy House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to do it, they will. Heck, if they have to destroy the United States in order to grab the levers of GOP machinery, they will, content in the knowledge that, as elites, they will have first pick of the spoils."

It was weird to read what I'd been thinking!

So the real question for the rest of us is: How much - and how far - is Obama willing to go in this game of Chicken? Two cars are bearing down on each other and the fact is, the Tea Party, if they're as strong as I believe them to be, won't budge, so, based on Obama's past performance, and his almost overwhelming need to make it appear that our government is still willing to work on a bi-partisan level, he'll give in. And that will mean what to us, the Average American? What will he give up to avoid the collision?

* Repealing the Bush Tax cuts for the rich - down the tubes, along with other taxes for the wealthy like
* Further raising taxes on other areas pertaining to the top percent of wage earners
* Cuts in Medicare (which also probably means added costs for Medicare recipients)
* Cuts in SS and SSD (which will also mean added costs for both and more difficulty in attaining both)
And more that I can't even begin to mention here.

And the funniest (in the saddest of ways) is that Republicans are now trying to compare themselves - and this debt battle - to what we, the average Americans, go through every day. They're actually stating on every right wing news show available that we Americans can balance our budgets, so why can't the government?

Hello? Do you Republicans have ANY idea of what's going on out in Main Street, USA? If you want to compare us to you, then try this: WE'RE UP TO OUR EYEBALLS IN DEBT TOO! The majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and the differences between white households and minorities have grown further and further apart, more than I can remember. That means if the middle-class white family is barely making it - guess what's happening to the minority family next door? And none of us can buy houses now, can we? And saving for college? A horror film for families.



In addition, the Republicans are trying two other tactics to get YOU on their side. Tactic #1: They're saying, "If the American family can balance their budgets, why can't we?" Hello? Where do you Congresspeople live? We're not balancing our budgets, we're in DEBT too and drowning. We live from paycheck to paycheck! And what about Tactic #2? It goes like this:  Fox News has decided that there are NO poor people in America! Don't believe me? Well, here's actual proof as Stuart Varney and his guest show us how 'the poor' aren't.



And by the way? The Heritage Foundation is, of course, a right wing foundation that is actually considered one of the most powerful lobbyist think tanks in Washington - and would you be surprised to discover how many times it's partnered with - yeah, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal?. Duh. In fact, together, they publish the annual Index of Economic Freedom, which measures a country's freedom in terms of property rights and freedom from government regulation (and in case you don't know what that means, try freedom from such agencies as the EPA, the FDA, the FAA, and so on and so on - in other words, the agencies that protect us by regulating big business to ensure they don't do things that will cost them less and thus exponentially harm us). The factors used to calculate the Index score are corruption in government (I doubt they count the conservative party), barriers to International Trade (you know, like those pesky tariffs, regulations etc), income tax (specifically on the rich, duh), corporate tax rates (those are a no-no to the Heritage Foundation), government expenditures (read: Entitlement programs like, oh, say...MEDICARE), rule of law (btw: for a good read, try to make heads or tails of "Rule of Law" when you research it and then decide if Heritage falls for it or against it *G*) and so on and so on. Yadda yadda. Deficiencies in the above, meaning that a government *does* have agencies to protect the consumers, or does tax the rich or try to close loopholes, etc., actually lower the score on Heritage's Index.

Anyway, it's certainly natural that they wouldn't believe there are any real poor people or that only TWO percent of America's children go hungry every night. *rolls eyes* And you can't possibly be poor if you own a coffee maker or a fridge. *rolls eyes again*

So are the Republicans that far out of the loop - or are they simply lying? Using words, once again, to fool the gullible Americans? And aren't you insulted to know they think we're this stupid???

If the Republicans actually admitted how bad things are for us, that we're in debt too and can't fix it, then they'd have to deal with the current situation and actually DO SOMETHING - like vote, as they have too many times to count before, to raise the debt ceiling which is a totally arbitrary number to begin with! And btw, it's the government's failure in the last 10 years to control banking procedures, housing procedures, etc., that contributed to our own debts (along with our own irresponsibility and stupidity - just like our government). And if they continue to refuse to deal with the very wealthy and the loopholes that keep them at the lowest rate of tax rate (if they pay any taxes at all) in history, then the horizon looks dim indeed.

Hopefully you're aware that the House did vote through Boehner's "Cut-Cap-Balance Plan" (which, thank GOD, the senate shot down and which is why he's in trouble again), but are you aware of what was in it? You can read the whole thing here but below are some important items directly from the Plan:

‘‘SEC. 317. CERTAIN DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total direct spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c).

‘‘(b) EXEMPT FROM DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.—
Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):

‘‘(1) Social Security, function 650.

‘‘(2) Medicare, function 570.

‘‘(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

‘‘(4) Net Interest, function 900.

‘‘(c) LIMITS ON OTHER DIRECT SPENDING.—The total combined outlays for all direct spending not exempted in subsection (b) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $680,730,000,000.’’.

Now, maybe you're left wondering what subsection (c) actually says so you can understand the phrase, *"It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total direct spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c)."

*Er...human translation required? Okay: The House and Senate can't consider any bill, joint resolution etc. that would cause any spending on anything that wasn't excluded in subsection (c). Or, in other words, they can spend money on the stuff in subsection (c) but everything else is excluded. So here's subsection (c):

‘‘(c) ADJUSTMENTS.—After the reporting of a bill or joint resolution relating to the global war on terrorism described in subsection (d), or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon—

‘‘(1) the chair of the House or Senate Committee on the Budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits provided in this section for purposes of congressional enforcement, the budgetary aggregates in the concurrent resolution on the budget most recently adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 23 1974, by the amount of new budget authority in that measure for that purpose and the outlays flowing there from; and

‘‘(2) following any adjustment under paragraph (1), the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately revised sub-allocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.

‘‘(d) GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.—If a bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that provides funding for the global war on terrorism, the allowable adjustments provided for in subsection (c) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $126,544,000,000 in budget authority and the outlays flowing there from.

So again, to translate for us mere humans - they can spend money on war and terrorism, but not on:

‘‘(1) Social Security, function 650.

‘‘(2) Medicare, function 570.

‘‘(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

‘‘(4) Net Interest, function 900.

And that's just part of the ridiculous Cut-Cap-Balance Plan delivered by the all-mighty and wonderful Tea Party of the House. *rolls eyes* And believe it or not - this plan is now considered TOO soft and the Tea Party wants Boehner to go back to the drawing board and come up with an even harder law. *rolls eyes again*

Right now, I'm scared to death. Obama is refusing to use his powers to raise the debt ceiling, to pay the bills, and that leads me to believe he's going to ultimately give in. So what will that mean to those of us on Medicare, SS and SSD?

For one, I suspect our premium will go up quite a bit in January, 2012, but the actual amount paid to us may go down or, at the very least, stay the same - again, for the 2nd year in a row - even though expenses are going up and up and up. I also suspect other changes will be made to Medicare, with less coverage being the result. Just the threat of all of this resulted in some major changes in Medicare and Medicare Advantage for 2011 from 2010. For instance, Mental Health co-pays went up in many plans, and the amount of $ available for eye exams/lenses/frames went down (for me, it went down by $60!). Many MA plans offer a set amount of free transportation and, in 2011, the trips were cut in half in many plans, mine included - and the same will probably happen again. But do I believe those in the higher income brackets will suffer equally? No way. Besides, they can afford the really GREAT MA plans anyway, and I doubt that they'll pay more for those benefits. :( And if you don't understand what I mean by better MA plans, let me explain.

The higher cost of the plan, the better the health advantages offered to the patients. I'm with MD Care and I pay no premium, no co-pays and tier one drugs are free. BUT, the number of physicians and specialists available are so small that in my case, I can't even see a dermatologist regarding the skin cancer because my plan doesn't have one! Of Primary Care physicians, I've got a choice of three! That's it. Three. And two of those have restrictions and aren't even permitted to treat anyone *alone*!!! In my entire plan, the number of specialists added up to something like ... 12.

And SNF (Skilled Nursing Facilities)? OMG. I checked the ones I'd be eligible for and NOT ONE had a rating above 2 on a scale of 1-5 stars and there were only two in my area and both had either 1 star or 2 out of 5!!! So last night, I spent time looking up other plans after finding several SNF's with ratings of 4 and 5 stars and I wanted to find what plan I'd need to join to get these AND more specialists - but those available with the good SNF's were plans that would cost a fortune:

$50 monthly premiums, $15-$25 co-pays, hospital stays with co-pays no matter how many days you're in, drugs starting at $10 and going up from there (and I take 7 medications daily), mental health co-pays = $50 per visit, and specialists? There were so many pages, I couldn't count them all (and yes, there were dermatologists galore). And Primary Care physicians galore as well.

And speaking of Medicare - has anyone noticed the sudden onslaught of stories about "Medicare Fraud" hitting our news stations? Coincidence? Not hardly. After all, Medicare and SS are prime targets of the Tea Party, so is it a surprise that these stories are cropping up now, while our government is in the middle of a financial debate that could, conceivably, ruin this nation? It's only a surprise if you live in Never-Never Land.

Oh, and what about those who will need SSD come 2012? I suspect the number of NO's will go up higher than now, even with lawyers helping. And so many have no idea what that will mean to the disabled or how long they'll go on while waiting, with no income and thus forced to use their retirement, eventually forced to sell their home, all the while fighting to be accepted on SSD, which already can take a year! But come 2012? I can't even imagine how much longer. After all, it's easier to say no than to actually investigate where reforms are needed (and investigations take MONEY). So instead, it will just be made tougher, all around.


We're in deep shit, so all this was to say: CALL tomorrow and keep on calling and write and/or email/comment NOW, today, and keep CALLING/emailing/commenting until this is settled in a way that saves our programs, keeps the US solvent, taxes those who need to be taxed, and follows Honor, Honesty and Trustworthiness.

TIME TO SCRAP THE

"FAMILY VALUES" rhetoric and go for what is far more important in life: "Personal Values". If politicians stopped trying to tell us
A) what a family must be (namely their version of a man/woman, 2.5 children, all white, and Christian - preferably Baptist or Protestant) and
B) that only the above type of Family is acceptable or recognizable under the Constitution *thud*, and worked instead on their own personal values, this country would become - truly- a kinder, gentler place to live, not to mention more financially sound.

It's been a rough political season so far, no doubt about it, and I'm already tired of being told who should have rights and who shouldn't; which religions are real and worthy of building churches and which aren't; of battling politicians who don't know American history (or bend it so far backward to fit their will that it disappears) and suffer from 'Foot-in-Mouth" disease, that the next year and a half scare the hell out of me! 

So yeah, maybe it is time to concentrate on PERSONAL VALUES. I honestly don't believe that the most popular Republican political phrase, "Family Values" has a place in Politics or laws and the phrase sure as hell isn't something to create a political issue out of in this day and age - if ever. Trying to legally define something so fluid, so subjective, is actually a monstrous and insidious thing to do.

On the other hand, I do believe that the phrase, "Personal Values" has a major seat of honor in politics. Those are the values, as a voter and a resident of this country - and world - that I'm interested in when it comes to the men and women I want representing me. And just what am I looking for in Personal Values? How about:

HONESTY

 

If a politician has done something wrong, do they have the character, the honesty, to step forward before there's even a hint of danger that their wrongdoing will be brought into the light? Are they, for interest, honest enough to fly against their own party, to say to their fellow party members, "You're wrong" and then vote their heart instead of how they're told to vote?

Can they be honest enough during campaigns to actually say, "Yes, I hate cauliflower, even though I'm here in the cauliflower capitol of the world" or "Yes, I believe that at a certain point, abortion is wrong, but I will never support taking the right to choose away from a woman even if it costs me your vote." 

Can they be honest enough to say, "Yes, we have the right to own a gun, to take pride in gun collections, but who needs automatic weapons or AK47's? Who needs clips that fire off 30 bullets in an instant or the kind of bullets that tear through the vests of the men and women charged with protecting us? And rights or no rights, I will support full investigations into those who wish to purchase guns, even at gun shows, prior to permission to buy." 

Do they value the kind of honesty that requires actually answering politically charged questions during interviews or debates and are they willing to divulge ALL campaign contributors and allow no hidden donators?

HONOR

Do they place their honor above their allegiance to an affiliated party? Do they have the required honor, following honesty, to take the necessary steps to correct mistakes and behavior? Because of their sense of honor, will they say no to those who would fill their campaign coffers in exchange for 'favors'? 

TRUSTWORTHY

    Can we trust them to listen to us, to actually represent our needs and wishes and, if those needs are contrary to what's best and constitutional, do they have the earlier mentioned honesty and honor to tell us; to educate us; to explain why they voted as they did? And if a good law comes along that they vote against - due to all the amendments added on that they would never vote for - will they be trustworthy, honest and honorable enough again to tell us/show us/educate us? Can we trust them to vote as promised and have no qualms in revealing said vote?

There are more characteristics, but this is a good start for any politician and, if we were to ask ourselves who, among the many we listen to everyday in this, our current hour of difficulty, have these "Values", would we be able to come up with any names?  

Even President Obama has let us down in some of the above when he finally compromised in the current 'negotiations' (now there's a laugh) regarding the debt ceiling by putting cuts to Medicare and Social Security on the table. There is no doubt that some reforms are required to make these programs run as smoothly as possible, but cutting the benefits is NOT the answer. Yet he did it. This shows a mental block that I just don't understand. He knows no matter what he does, they will say NO. NO NO NO. And yet...he can't seem to get the message. He's trying to take a high road where there is only one road to take: Push when it comes to shove and, like Theodore Roosevelt said, "Talk softly but carry a big stick". It's time for our soft-spoken President to lift the stick.

By the way, Personal Values aren't restricted to the politicians. Oh, no. Personal Values applies to the voters too! Politicians, even the honest ones (there's an assumption that there are some - somewhere), have a hard row to hoe and, in many cases, we're the reason. So what kind of Personal Values do we owe our Government? 

EDUCATION: 

This is the big one and the one where we most often fail our government. We fail to learn all we can about the men and women we're looking at to represent us; be it at city, state or federal levels. We fail to educate ourselves on how our representatives vote, let alone how many times they've even been present to vote. We're also lacking in our knowledge of the Constitution and our history, which in today's climate, can spell disaster. And it's so easy to find the Constitution (link taken directly from the White House site) and read it - so when was the last time you did?

BLINDNESS

We're often blind to the weaknesses of our Party and, as a result, we blindly follow its lead, even when it's against our best interest. No Party Platform is perfect and we all struggle to find the party that, on the whole, meets what we expect from government - but sometimes our Party goes astray. That's when we need some of the honesty and honor we require from our representatives - in ourselves - so we can take the 

blinders off.

RESEARCH

We often forget that everything we need to know is not to be found via our local - or favorite - news channel; but rather at our government's website, again, be it city, state or federal. 

Example:  The Federal Government website, which is the alpha and omega no matter where your search engine takes you first. This is where it all begins and will tell us all about our government; each branch - and has links to the House of Representatives where you can see all the votes, sessions, etc., and then the Senate  and even the Supreme Court. And yes, plus many more. Heck, in the left hand column, you'll even find a link to your State government!

GETTING INVOLVED

We really tend to fail here and it's the keystone to our Personal Values in just about every aspect of our lives. Apathy is the enemy. Assumptions? Also the enemy - a big one. We often assume everyone feels as we do and will go out and vote/educate themselves/research, etc., but we're wrong. Americans are, unfortunately, basically lazy and, like sheep, simply follow the footsteps of others. 

 And finally, one Value that fits both our government representatives and ourselves:
 

Equality.

I could have used the word Tolerance instead, but no one should just be 'tolerated' because we don't agree/understand them but deign to allow them to exist, no, Acceptance and Equality are far more important words and thus actions than Tolerance. We 'tolerate' the loud neighbors next door every now and then when they have a party, or we tolerate our husband's inability to remember to put the seat back down or pick up his socks, but we should never do something so negative - and downright dismissive - as to tolerate the color of one's skin, religion or sexual preferences. We should accept those things as we accept the sunrise because we should be seeing through the eyes of equality not tolerance. If we think we only have to tolerate those who are perceived as 'different', it's not too far a walk to a point where we start believing that our color/religion/family/sexual preferences are the only right ones and then, even the disagreeable word, "tolerance", flies out the window and only certain people become worthy of the benefits our country has to offer.

So yes, a kinder, gentler politics is the answer, not the rigid type we're being handed each day even though it seems wrapped in the American flag, Mom's Apple Pie, and of course, the all-mighty 2nd Amendment. 

Of course, kinder and gentler may be the way, but that won't stop me from  calling out politicians when they make statements like:

"Any ad that quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood!" or  

"My statements on Planned Parenthood weren't meant to be factual." 

No, Foot-in-Mouth Disease will still be pointed out - and as for the  flip-floppers? Still prime targets for the truth.

Would you sign this pledge?

You've heard of Iowa's "Family Leadership Pledge", right? No? Well, sit down and prepare to read the kind of idiocy that's unknown to us - usually. Now don't get me wrong, being faithful when married is something I believe strongly in, but to tell candidates in Iowa to sign this document or they will NOT receive their votes or even be considered? WOW. And trust me, there's a LOT more in this RIDICULOUS document than just promises not to be unfaithful if you're married and want to be President (or any other government elected position). Check it out, but trust me, it's long, but man, it's one hell of a read and worth your time.

Sorry to any Ohioans who are Democrats or normal Republicans but honestly, are there any left in Ohio or have they all been taken over by aliens?  

If you're feeling lazy - here are the highlights:

THE PURPOSE

(A Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY)

Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.2

Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families, and the liberties of all American citizens under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure without the transmission of personal virtue, from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anemic condition of marriages in their own communities. Unmistakably, the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis:

 Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African- American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.3

 LBJ‟s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents4 – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity. 5

 About one million U.S. children suffer through divorce each year – the outcome of about half of all first marriages and about 60 percent of remarriages, disproportionately affecting economically-vulnerable families.6

 The taxpayer-borne social costs of family fragmentation exceeds $112 billion per year, especially when all costs to the justice system are recognized.7

 Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal co-habitation; exemplary infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health. 8

The Actual Candidates Pledge

The Candidate Vow:

Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:

 Personal fidelity to my spouse.9

 Respect for the marital bonds of others.10

 Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.11

 Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.12

 Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy. 13

 Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.” 14

 Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.15

 Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States. 16

 Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.17

 Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.18

 Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.19

 Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security. 20

 Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.21

 Fierce defense of the First Amendment‟s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech22, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.

The Vow of Civic, Religious, Lay, Business, and Social Leaders:

We the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* that no U.S. Presidential primary candidate – nor any primary candidate for the U. S. House, Senate, Governor, state or municipal office – will, in his or her public capacity, benefit from any substantial form of aid, support, endorsement, contribution, independent expenditure, or affirmation from any of us without first affirming this Marriage Vow. Furthermore, to uphold and advance the natural Institution of Marriage, we ourselves also hereby vow* our own fidelity to this Declaration and especially, to our spouses.

So help us God.

* NOTE: Or, “solemnly attest”. Each signatory signs only in his or her individual capacity as an American citizen and current or potential leader; affiliations herein are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply formal embrace of this vow or the sentiments herein by any institution or organization.

Signatories:

Name Candidacy or Title/Affiliation Date

___________________________         _______________

___________________________         _______________         

I'm thinking a TEST on AMERICAN HISTORY would be more in order, especially for the two females who seem bent on giving the rest of us a bad name.

Will our President sell us down the river?

Right now, our leaders are arguing over what to cut and what not to cut in order to deal with our debt ceiling (which, btw, has been increased, like, 16 times in our history, so it's hardly new to do so), and one of the issues on the table - and one that I'm feeling Obama is NOT standing firm on, are Social Security benefits (and of course, Medicare and Medicaid). But right now, my mind is reeling with questions about Social Security: Specifically the raising of the age at which one becomes eligible to retire and collect SS.

My mind keeps going from question to question, so I did some research.

First of all, we are living longer than in 1935 when Social Security was created by Roosevelt. Back then, the life expectancy for both sexes was 62.9 years (59.7 for men, and 63.5 for women) and yet, oddly enough, you couldn't retire until - are you ready? 65. Laughable, eh?

Okay, now go forward one generation (based on the above #'s in '35) to 1997 and the life expectancy was 76.5 (73.6 for men, 79.4 for women) and the retirement age? 67. Better than in '35, that's for sure. Now a man had almost 9 years ahead of him and a woman; 14 years+!

So that brings us to today and the projected life expectancy, which happens to be 79.5 (77 for men and...are you sitting down? 82 for women). This is a major improvement as it gives men 12 years following retirement and women 17 years! But it also gives credence to an argument on raising the retirement age. After all, why should we actually get to enjoy retirement longer? Who the hell do we think we are, anyway? Senators?

Obviously, the fact that we're living longer is a given. Health care was bound to improve - in spite of itself. In fact, I think we can thank both WWII and the Korean War for a good many of the improvements in medical treatments. But that doesn't mean our health care is anywhere near where it needs to be.

SO my mind asks another question: What is the quality of life for us and those of our children as they live those years between retirement and death if the age is raised? And with health care actually on the chopping block - combined with our refusal to meet the standards of the rest of the world in providing superior health care, well, it doesn't bode well, does it?

Then another question pops up: Who the hell can really retire NOW at any of the acceptable ages (62, 65 or 67) except the rich? So what do we really gain by raising the age limit? And do you have any idea how many city bigwigs and retired CEO's who do consulting STILL take their SS?? Maybe that's where we should start when talking SS reform?

My brain finally decided that we basically work forever, our health declines because we're at the mercy of health providers who are corporations and thus in it for profit, and at the mercy of the drug companies who create drugs for pennies and charge a 400% mark-up (and of course, they don't really care if their drugs work or how many side effects - because the idea is to get their drug on the market FIRST). And when we're finally ready and legally able to retire, our benefits won't be equal to the COL and we probably just had another crash and lost all our 401k's etc. and the company we worked for lost all our pension money...which reminds me....

There are also many loopholes that allow full pension payments AND full SS at the same time, meaning someone who is making, say, $50,000 a year off their pensions, can still, under certain circumstances, collect their full SS. There's another area where some work could be done, but yes, it would require real sacrifice because, come on, you really did pay into SS, so it's YOURS. And you paid into your Pension Plan/s, so it's YOURS.

Makes the whole thing a real conundrum.

So final question: What's the answer?

My choice: President Obama? Stand tall and firm. Don't give anything away but plan on reforms in the future to cover loopholes and improve Medicare/Medicaid. Otherwise, a cow could run against you in 2012 and they'd win. Trust me on this.

I've been meaning to add something about the Republican

Commercial Debate, specifically about Michelle Bachmann's remark about disbanding the EPA. So here goes the addition:

1. Why would a Republican (Tea Party) want to disband the EPA?

A: She'll say because it's BIG GOVERNMENT and the states should regulate their own environments and corporations that do business in their states.

2. What's wrong with that response?

A: States don't always have the interest of their citizens, let alone the environment or land, at heart. Especially when it comes to bringing in the all mighty dollar. And big business does just that. And if they can come into a state with no Federal shackles (EPA, anyone?), and make deals with the state, then guess what? That's what will happen. And when that happens, pollution will return full force to the states that have managed to clean up and uphold high EPA standards and even higher State standards, and worsen in those states who've managed to ignore or find loopholes in EPA regulations. What's breathable air and beautiful, safe lakes, rivers and ponds when you can line your pockets in the green stuff?

So the EPA and other Federal regulatory agencies will go the way of the do-do bird if 2012 sees a Republican (especially MB) voted into the Presidency. And the questions and answers will run approximately the same.

Are you starting to understand what small government really means to Republicans versus big government to the Democrats? One protects and one gives free rein to the states. I'm sure you can guess which does what, right? RIGHT?

Remember my post on DADT? (Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010)

Well, after all this time, did you know DADT is STILL in effect? And why, may you ask? Simple: The Pentagon has yet to ratify it. Gosh, what a surprise.

So things change while remaining exactly the same. Oh, there are small, quiet, court settlements for individual cases, and there's a pending motion in federal court that would permit all people to serve regardless of sexual orientation but then, the key wording was "Federal Court". *snort* I have little hope for the motion, nor much hope in the future of this country whether run by Democrats or Republicans.

All right, that's not altogether true - I could write a SciFi story on "Life Under the Small Government of Republican Rule" - in fact, I just might...if I can find the right hero to lead the charge to free the slaves....

Alas Alack!

I have tried to interest Rachel Maddow AND Jon Stewart in our party, but so far, no success. Anyone have any ideas? And how does one get their blog out there? Are there tricks to the trade?