just what is essential?

The Senate’s side of the Capitol Building in DC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I was thinking about the government shutdown today (can you imagine that?) and specifically about how only “essential” government employees will continue to work. It occurred to me that as long as Harry Reid and the Senate continue to refuse to negotiate, that the Senate is now basically non-essential. Perhaps, they should all just be furloughed and go home to their states.

That would just leave the House and the Administration to come to an agreement. However, since the President also isn’t willing to even negotiate, perhaps the President is also no longer essential and should be furloughed too? We could just let him go back to playing golf (or whatever else he does when he is ignoring things like Benghazi) and then the House could finally pass some laws and get this country back on track.

Silly. I know, but it is a nice dream, isn’t it? If nothing else, getting rid of the Senate would finally put an end to Senators without any executive experience running for President. At least, with mainly Governors running we would know that they have some executive experience and aren’t totally incompetent. That is what I call essential.

reading between the lines of the 14th Amendment

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill (Photo credit: Rosie O’Beirne)

Okay, several times today, I’ve heard multiple people in person, on radio and on TV, say that the President can legally just ignore the debt limit imposed by Congress because of the 14th Amendment. I didn’t remember reading anything like that, so I decided to check it again, myself. Here are the words of Section 4 and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Okay the second line of Section 4 was about the debt incurred by the South during the Civil War. That doesn’t say anything like the President can ignore Section 5 and the power of Congress to enforce article 14. The first line of Section 4 just says that the validity of our debt shall not be questioned. That doesn’t say anything about it either. I know some people like to read between the lines, but come on. Putting aside that fact, that reaching a debt ceiling doesn’t do anything to invalidate the debt, and contrary to what President Obama has stated recently, it doesn’t do anything to keep the government from servicing the debt.

The government can continue to service the debt regardless of the debt ceiling, at least until we reach the point where servicing our debt takes all of the government revenues. Yes, I will admit that it seems that this President and Democrat controlled Senate are bound and determined to do exactly that someday.  Since they refuse to decrease the rate of growth by even small amounts like in the sequestor, let alone actually cut, the federal debt. However, that day hasn’t come, yet.  If the Tea Party is successful and it isn’t already too late, that day may never come.

Despite the wreckless and unprecedented increase in the money supply, the Fed has managed, so far, to artificially hold down inflation. I fear that some stuff just hasn’t hit the fan yet, but it is coming someday.  At which point, the cost of servicing our debt could quickly grow perhaps to the point of no return.  Until, then, to those who think the 14th Amendment gives the President some magical power to consult with the Supreme Court and to ignore Congress. I’d appreciate if they show me which section and which line they are referring to. Because either my copy of the Constitution is missing some important lines or they are are reading something that just isn’t there and never was.

make it so, or maybe not

President Obama Announces Osama Bin Laden’s Death – 86600021-EndofApril_BeginningofMay_1200 (Photo credit: Phillip Stearns)

Benghazi represents a litany of mistakes and failures by our government at multiple levels.  So many questions are going to be left unanswered until the next Administration, I suppose. For example, how in the world did the State Department totally fail to provide the appropriate level of protection of our embassy and staff in Libya on that day of all days? What were they thinking and why hasn’t someone been fired for that?

The failure that really bothers me, though, is the total failure of leadership.  Which is underscored by the fact that we still do not know exactly what did, or didn’t happen, in the White House that tragic night. President Obama told us, later, that he gave the order to do whatever it takes to help his Ambassador. After which, we don’t know exactly what the President did, if anything. I guess he slept and prepared for his campaign trip the next day.

Regardless, one would assume that sometime the next morning someone would have to give the President the bad news of the death of his Ambassador and of three others. At which point, he would also find out that no action was taken to help them and that in fact orders were given to stand down. At that point, if I were the President, I would be very upset because I had given orders that were not obeyed. I would want explanations and, very likely, heads would roll. Figuratively, of course.

But that didn’t happen, President Obama has all but claimed that he has no idea what happened. No one has been held to blame. The President seems somehow inexplicably unaware that someone on his staff, perhaps the Secretary of Defense or in the military, disobeyed a direct order. This just doesn’t add up. The only possible explanation that I can think of is that, in fact, President Obama did not give any such order. Instead he ordered them to do nothing and have the military stand down. Then he went off, leaving the military, the departments of Defense and State to watch hours and hours of people calling for help and backup that never came. If I were him, I would want to cover that up, too.

social insecurity

Social secruity (Photo credit: SalFalko)

My dad always used to tell me that he didn’t expect to get anything back out of social security when he reached retirement age.  I always responded and told him that he wasn’t the one that should be worried, I was the one that should be worried.  I was born at the wrong time, at the very tail end of the baby boomers.  People are living longer, fewer people are being born, the population is aging.  It is not a good demographic scenario for me.  A Ponzi scheme, like our Social Security system, is all about the demographics.

Recently, we reached the significant point where the social security system first began to send out more money than it takes in.  No one seemed to notice or care.  The few politicians that even try to suggest fixes are attacked by demagogues and accused of not caring for the elderly, for example with commercials showing them pushing granny off a cliff.  The funny thing is that by not doing anything to fix the problems, those fighting for the status quo are really the ones pushing us all over the cliff.

I’m glad that my dad was wrong and that he is getting benefits from social security.  Especially, since the government sponsored GM bankruptcy was not good for salaried GM retirees, like my dad.  He has paid into the social security system and so it is only fair that he benefit.  I have also paid into the system.  I have paid a lot and I’m going to pay a lot more before I reach retirement.  However, it seems clear that the system as it is now structured is not sustainable.  It will not be there for me.

Unfortunately, we seem to be leaderless.  Our politicians kick the can but can’t kick the habit of spending and borrowing and ignoring our most important problems.  The longer they ignore this problem, the worse will be the consequences upon those of us around at that future time.  Minor changes now could make a big difference, but the longer we wait the more dramatic a fix will be required, if the system is to continue exist at all.  However, I have no confidence in our elite politicians and an apathetic populace that doesn’t seem to care, which could explain my social insecurity issues.

politicians, lies, propaganda and shame

In The State Tinkers (1780), James Gillray caricatured Sandwich (on left) and his political allies as incompetent tinkers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I was writing my last little opinion rant, It occurred to me that I was perhaps over simplifying issues. I certainly wasn’t taking the time to do research and site sources as I once did when I was writing papers in college. This made me feel a little embarrased and ashamed, which I think is a good thing. That is human. In my defense, I’m trying to constrain my little posts to something short and sweet. Bite size nuggets of bitterness. That kind of thing. I just want to vent and make my little point and move on. I’m not claiming to have all the answers or solutions. I’m not trying to promote 1000+ page laws that I haven’t read. I’m just exercising my right to free speech and giving my own perspective.

Politicians today it seems don’t have any shame. I wonder if they are human? Maybe they are all aliens from another galaxy sent to infiltrate and destroy humanity. 🙂 For example, I know that if I was a total incompetent and a failure in my job, I would try to find something else to do. Wouldn’t you? But our most incompetent politicians run for re-election. They seemingly can stand in front of we the people that they work for and shamelessly lie and spew propaganda like “we don’t have a spending problem” and never even miss a beat. How is this possible? What kind of people are politicians? I guess they would say “what does it matter?”  One of them sort of did say that recently.  Somehow, I think the fact that they seem to have no shame is very important. I’m just not sure what it really means, but I don’t think it is good. They make me feel ashamed.

when balance is unbalanced

Balance à tabac (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve been spending twice what I make for years now, so I decided that it was time to go and have a serious talk with my boss. I told him what we needed was a fair and balanced plan. He would have to raise my salary, starting next payday. In turn, I promised in the future to do my best to try to reduce my expenditures. Well, maybe just reduce the rate of increase in my expenditures. I wouldn’t want to try to do anything radical.

Does this story sound ludicrous to you? Of course it does. Nobody in their right mind would suggest trying this with their boss. So, why do our politicians think that this kind of “balance” makes sense when they are talking about the huge trillion dollar plus federal deficits that the current administration has racked up every year over the past four years? We, the people are their bosses. And when they come to me and say that this is their idea of balance, I can’t help but think that they are unbalanced.

ignore that droning sound you hear

Armed Predator drone firing Hellfire missile (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We have met the enemy and they are us.  Recently released memo from our Justice Department apparently tries to legitimize using drones to target U.S. citizens.  As much as it feels good to hear about terrorists being sent to their maker by a drone without the need to risk placing our armed forces in harm’s way, I don’t believe this is right.  First of all, the government could have followed legal proceeding to revoke the citizenship of anyone that has taken up arms against their own country.   They could have followed due process.  Our constitution has words meant to protect our natural rights against our government.  Any citizen surely deserves due process.  Second of all, the executive government is doing this in secret.  Without any oversight or checks by the legislative or judicial branches of government.  That is a sure path to tyranny.

It seems obvious to me that in a war zone and with a legitimately declared war that drones are just another high tech weapon.  However, when drones are sent over countries that are not in a war zone, things are not so obvious to me.   I would think that sending drones over another sovereign government, especially without their permission is an act of war.  Are we willing to go to war to be able to strike at will over some countries in Africa that are not in a war zone?  I’m not.  And what kind of precedent are we setting?  How would we feel when another country begins flying drones over our borders?  Or will we ignore them like simple illegal immigrants.