Sunday, December 19, 2010

Congress is not a Christmas Solution

Everywhere we turn, someone in a legislative body is passing a law to solve a problem. We have passed a laws handing out free health care, one for retirement benefits, one for a gay military, one for bank bail outs and there are several against drugs. Did it every occur to these lawmakers that laws just regulate people or their entitlements. They don’t solve problems, they create new ones.

The laws dealing with drugs backfire in an unusual way. You get caught dealing drugs, you go to prison. This is really an “Advanced Educational Training Camp” where you learn how to do it right. Plus you can pick up new skills, like lock picking, and identity theft. Let’s face it our high schools just don’t have the resources to offer these courses.

Then we have these wonderful laws setting up retirement plans. They have been working just great until a few people in government started to wonder aloud, where is the money coming from to pay for all of this? CalPERS states that it is making 7.75 percent interest on their investments; do we dare accuse them of lying or just laugh at their claim.

Congress cannot pass a law that will create jobs to replace the ones that were lost; most of those jobs are gone forever. They passed laws setting the minimum wage and demanded more taxes from these rich employers. The net result, whole industries moved off shore to produce their product and then import it. If you want your bread buttered for free, guess what, the butter isn’t going to be there for long.

Now it’s OK to be gay openly in the military. I can’t figure that one out. The last thing you would ever want to do is walk up to a marine and ask him if he was gay (you body probably wouldn’t be entitled to a military funeral). I guess you don’t have to be “A real man” to join the army now (that ought to be a real boost to enlistments). The only reason I bring this up is because of its insignificance. It’s not like half of the voters are gay, they are a very small part of the population and they get a tremendous amount of attention from Congress. The gay population can’t be more than 3% but it is at the top of the “To do” list for Congress. When you think about it, a bill on cancer research would get a “Ho Hum,” but a bill having to do with gay rights will get that Congressman’s name in the paper with a photograph. This program could work out real well with the Navy; the sailors wouldn’t have to come home every 9 months to be with “loved ones.”

Congress also reduced the Social Security tax by 2%. My only question is why? Isn’t this supposed to be money saved towards our retirement? (of course the Supreme Court said that it was a tax and not a retirement plan) So you get to spend it now instead of later—all $400 of it. It is very hard to raise taxes, and even when it has been done, and then reversed later in time, you feel the burn a second time, for the same thing. We know that Congress needs to raise taxes, but they seem more like clowns running a circus; “Vote for me, and get a free ride.”

The thing we really need to ask ourselves, are all of these new laws constructively solving our problems? The second question we need to ask, can they accomplish the task? The third question you need to ask is where is the money coming from? And the fourth question, does anyone really understand the bogus financing? If you have read this far, you know your up to your neck in quicksand, but hey, this is only a dream---- waking up could be a real nightmare.

Santa is coming to town next week and surprisingly he doesn’t look a bit like a Congressman. Just maybe we need to think about what we need for the coming New Year and sadly it is jobs. All I can suggest is help someone you know in need; God Bless and Merry Christmas to all.

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved

11 comments:

Drewbert said...

"Now it’s OK to be gay openly in the military. I can’t figure that one out. The last thing you would ever want to do is walk up to a marine and ask him if he was gay (you body probably wouldn’t be entitled to a military funeral). I guess you don’t have to be “A real man” to join the army now (that ought to be a real boost to enlistments). The only reason I bring this up is because of its insignificance."

Wow! Get up with the times man. The issue wasn't about asking if someone was gay. The issue was about being fired for it. There is no requirement to be "out" in the Military, it's just that you can no longer be fired if it is found out. Gays are already in the military doing their jobs. We've fired 14,000 presumably qualified military personnel just for being gay and due to low recruitment rates, had to lower the standards so we could let straight ex-convicts in. We've wasted billions of dollars on prosecution of capable and willing troops who's only crime was who they were in a relationship with. We've fired dozens of skilled Arabic translators for being gay... can't think why we might need any of them right now.

The reason this happened in the lame duck session is that there was no way it would come to the table again in the next two years.

The military leadership(other than the Marine commandant) the Sec. of Defense, and 68 US Senators think it was time for a repeal. Get it done while we can.

As for no longer being a "real man" to get into the Military. Try saying that to an Israeli soldier and see how quickly you get your ass kicked. They've allowed openly gay service for years and they aren't exactly a military anyone wants to F with.

My ex boyfriend (I'm male) served 3 tours in Iraq. He was a chemical fuel specialist who made sure the Apache helicopters flew. Any reason for him to be fired just because I was here in the states waiting for him?

Tyrone said...

This is really an “Advanced Educational Training Camp” where you learn how to do it right. Plus you can pick up new skills, like lock picking, and identity theft. Let’s face it our high schools just don’t have the resources to offer these courses.

ROFL

rob in ns said...

Drewbert

I take Jim's post a little diferently than you. I understand your sensitivity to any comment about don't ask dont tell. I find the whole debate ridiculous. I live in canada and we have had no restrictions based on sexulality since 1992. Our military hasn't fallen apart and neither will yours. The reason being is that it affects a small minority of the population. Looking at entirety of debate it all seems a little silly to me when we have Mozzilo et al stealing the country blind. AIG was given a couple of hundred billion dollars to pay off bets of Goldman Sachs and the other banksters with nary a peep. We need serious debate about fraud in banking sector and yet find time on a wedge issue like this. It seems to me that the politicos in charge are just throwing up smoke screen to throw everyone off the scent. That way the rats can scurry off the deck into the lifeboats so they can get nice view when this ship (economy) sinks.

rob

anyway everyone have a Merry Christmas

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Drewbert

If you pay attention to the TV advertising the military does, it is all about being a Macho-man. The gay issue contrasted with their recruiting ads tends to have a rather humorous twist to it.

The intent of the law is to right a wrong but it is not very well thought out. The fear of AIDS associated with the gay community is a stigma they have to live with. The military probably considers them a walking bio-hazard that could infect others. A marine with a 12 pack under his belt, might consider gay bashing, a recreational sport.

The whole part you quoted was meant in a humorous jest, but I was serious about how insignificant this law is as a news event. When Lincoln freed the slaves, that was a news event, this item belongs on page 5 somewhere. The way Congress and the president are strutting around, you'd think they found a cure for cancer. The number of people it affects, my guess 3,000--you can't count the Klinger's that want out of the military.

rob in NS said...

The whole point of Jim's post is to posit the premise that Congress can't wave a wand and make things better. The debate over DADT only proves that many can be thrown off scent in regards the economy. Just last week they were trying to extend the Bush tax cuts while facing a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. The recession or depression is not over but if the plug is pulled on the spending there will be riots in streets.

The world isn't going to end anytime soon but the economy isn't out of woods by a long stretch.

rob

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Rob

Thanks for coming to my defense. I deleted Joseph's comments that you responded to. His remarks were just some bear baiting that didn't really deserve a response. I figured that I would spare any new readers the chore of reading it.

I'll bet you'll have a white Christmas up in Nova Scotia--and it has to be c-o-l-d! Take care

rob in ns said...

Jim

The weather has been surprisingly warm and we may not have white christmas here in Nova Scotia. I do work for company in Baltimore and they have been about 10 degrees farenheit colder on average than here for past couple of weeks. This is surprising considering all the hot air blowing up from D.C.

Anyway hope everyone out there has Merry Christmas.

SurvivalAndProsperity.com said...

Every time Congress "fixes" something, I cringe in anticipation of the unintended consequences that often follow. Especially as it concerns the economy. Is it any surprise that the term "blowback" was coined by a U.S. government agency.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Survival and Prosperity

You are quite right. There is a quote worth repeating; "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," it covers what we are talking about.

If our problems were simple, they could have been solved thousands of years ago--and they weren't

Thank you for dropping by, Merry Christmas

frakrak said...

Hi Jim, and thanks for your blog. You have my agreement with your point about government interventions and their unintended consequences. The greater good has evaporated from most government agenda’s over the past decades.

Special interest groups, social action groups, lobbyists, have left me wondering if governments really care about mainstream representation.

Your point Jim about questioning whether government laws are solving specific problems, and the logic for people to look at these laws critically and ask specific questions as to whether these laws solve what they have been intended to solve, is reasonable, but governments aren’t really interested in solving problems are they?

Governments are more interested in re-election, and not making tough decisions to address issues. Most elections between the main political parties here are separated by 7 percent when it comes to an election. In steps the social “agendered groups” and the greater good leaves the building. As you know Jim the numbers have it, 3 percent, 5 percent representation then becomes something akin to being a kingmaker for these parties.

This could be why most people feel disenfranchised with the political system. In this country if you are male, you have less money spent on you in education and health compared to the other half of the population. You are less likely to get a government job (over 70 percent of newly created positions have been filled by women over the past three decades) and if you are a divorced dad you will soon find out that you don’t have the same rights being a parent. More men have committed suicide in this country over the past three and a half decades over “family law issues” than were killed in the Second World War.

So I am special interest group fatigued!! My advice to them is to suck it up, far greater numbers in this so called democracy have had to.

The squeaky hinge gets the oil …..

cheers

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Frakrak

I couldn't be in more agreement. Your post brought to mind a bumper sticker I saw years ago: "Nuke the Whales" --some people can say volumes with very few words.

Thank you for the post and Happy New Year everyone.