Crazys

No, I did not misspell the title. It's meant to look that way, because it's reflective of who it represents.

As I have indicated many times on this site, I am not a huge Bush fan. I do not think he has accomplished his goals and he has expanded government rather than shrinking it. But I do not attack him personally--mostly because I think he's a good person.

Based on that last sentence, many readers will disregard this blog. They will say I am a Republican, a Bush-supporter, a right-wing puppet.

That reaction is exactly what is wrong with American politics.

I do not think Bush is a bad person. I do think he is a below-average President. Do I think Hillary Clinton is a bad person? Absolutely. Is that because I'm a Bush-lover? No. I just believe she is dishonest, disingenuous, and cares more about public opinion than reality, more about polls than progress, and more about herself than anyone else.

I also think Obama is a man of integrity. I would trust him to make decisions based on principal. I do not agree with most of his policy ideas, but I like him and trust him.

Last night on the radio I heard a caller say that she while she didn't "like him" she believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "better than Bush."

Wow.

If this woman lived in Iran, she would be subject to the following laws:

Article 18 of passport law, married women requires their husband's permission to apply for a passport.

Article 102 of Iran’s Constitution indicates: "Women who appear on streets and in public without the prescribed ‘Islamic Hejab’ will be condemned to 74 strokes of the lash.”

Article 300 of the Penal code states that the "Deyeh" of a Muslim woman is half of the "Deyeh" of a Muslim man. By law the life of a woman has half the value of a man in Islamic criminal law in Iran.

Article 105 of the Civil Code "In the relationship between a man and a woman, the man is responsible as head of the family." The Council of Guardians, has decreed, "A woman cannot leave her home without her husband's permission, even to attend her father's funeral".

Article 1117 of the Civil Code states that the husband may ban his wife from any technical profession that conflicts with family life or her character.

Want more? Women are executed by stoning for committing adultery. And, to top it off, it would be most unfortunate for this caller to live in Iran, where women who oppose the goverment are often improsined and submitted to sexual torture and dismemberment.

We cannot have honest conversations when people talk like this. To compare Bush to Ahmidenijad is ridiculous, to favor Ahmidenijad is, at best, sexist, racist, and treachorous.

Ahmidenjiad has said publicly that he wants to drive Israel into the ocean and eliminate Jewish people. His military supports attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Yet this woman--who is, sadly, just one of many individuals like this--publicly states that President Bush is worse than Ahmidenijad. This is astounding.

Unfortunately, the ignorant, hateful, uninformed public represent a huge portion of our voting population. There are lots of people in this country that would support that woman's statement. And, perhaps worse, the rational thinkers and politicians--on the left or right--will not condemn and discourage this type of behavior.

Extremism is the order of the day. It's popular in many circles to hate Bush and bash America. This poor caller did not even know why she felt that way. She just knew that's how she had been told to think.

"Study to show thyself worthy." Americans need to do less TV-watching and more fact-finding, because the media is no longer a reliable source for information. They present half-stories that corner people into conclusions and forward specific agendas. What we end-up with are "crazys" who actually believe, in their hearts, minds, and souls, that Ahmidenijad is "better than Bush."

Honest Dollars (part II)

Well, it's been an awful long time since I updated the blog. I have been earning my own "honest dollars" in a new job.

The last blog brought up the point about honesty and integrity in corporate America. How do we restore this? How can honor and business become unified?

White collar crime has to be punished with prison sentences. Not fines, not house arrest, not some of the "fake" prisons that treat you like a Super 8 Motel (other than not allowing you to leave, obviously).

More freedom requires more responsibility, and in order for us to maintain the strongest economy in the world, we need to maintain the highest level of economic freedom. We need to encourage growth and experimentation, reward success, and discourage dishonesty.

Capitalism is based on the free market--people making their own decisions about what to do with their money. This becomes implausible when companies are dishonest. Consumers simply do not have the time and resources to look into a company's claims. So when Corporate America lies, we have no choice but to believe them.

Enter the United States government.

No matter which party you support, you are supporting big business. Year-after-year the financial sector contributes huge dollars to both parties so they can maintain the status quo. Do not get tricked into believing that Republicans are the only supporters of big business. Just follow the money trail. The leading Democrat presidential candidates are being funded by big business as well.

The reality is that party has nothing to do with this issue. Dishonesty breaks down the system, and it needs to be punished more severely and more consistently. Jail time for white collar crime is the solution.

Honest Dollars

This entry is the first of a two-part series discussing the importance of responsible business.

What is it that makes America so great? Why did the first immigrants risk their lives to make the journey here, and why do people continue to flock to America?

There is a tendency for us to believe that America has a system of laws that allow individuals a greater sense of freedom. Because our nation was built by individuals seeking freedom from persecution and the ability to live without government making decisions about their personal lives, it is easy to romanticize the qualities of our United States of America. And to certain extent, this is all true. But as a result of the success and power this nation has attained, there are many places one can live and enjoy very similar personal freedoms without interference from the government and the general population.

A famous playwright best explained why people--even many of the very first settlers--have come and continue to come to this country. He said simply, "You have work."

I am a patriot. I adore the United States, and cherish the individual freedoms accorded by her laws and the Constitution. But we could not enjoy such a wonderful nation without wealth. Anyone who has traveled to a less developed country (LDC) can tell you that, by comparison, we have it pretty easy.

I do not mean to ignore the poverty in this country. There are many people who are struggling to make ends meet, put food on the table, and live in a safe environment. But many of the worst places in this country would be among the best places in an LDC (less developed country).

Many people in LDC's live without adequate shelter, clothing, and food, whereas the vast majority of Americans--even those living in impoverished conditions--have the three basic needs adequately supplied. Most Americans who do not manage to cover their own basic needs are dealing with substance abuse, have been struck by a tragic disaster (such as Hurricane Katrina), or struggle with mental illness. The minimum wage in this country exceeds the average pay for labor in many places. This is why immigrants are willing to come to the United States and share a two-room house with ten other people.

Yes, we have it better than most places on the globe. We live in a relatively safe country where individual criminals are a much greater danger than warlords, government collapse, or genocide. But more than that, almost anyone willing to work can find a job in this country. Please note, I did not say a "good" job, but a job that pays minimum wage here would allow a family of four to live very comfortably in most LDC's.

It is somewhat popular to bash "capitalism" and "big business." But the truth is that the freedoms that have allowed us to achieve our wealth as a nation are just as important as the individual freedoms that have allowed us to express ourselves. What good is free speech if you can't eat?

To be sure, capitalism is a good thing. It is simply a system that allows good ideas to succeed freely, and allows individuals to earn what they are worth. However, the system fails without honesty and integrity, and the erosion of these values has led many Americans to cringe at the thought of "big business." A few bad apples have made the whole bunch look pretty rotten.

It's time to make "Corporate America" a term we adore. It's time for honest change.

Sore Losers

Switching modes for a moment, I feel compelled to write an entry about current events. While the primary goal of this blog is to point out necessary reforms to upgrade the quality of our government and improve the country as a whole, there is an issue that requires some attention.

Let me begin by saying this: I am not a staunch supporter of the Bush Administration. Since our current president took office, spending is through the roof, a war has been mismanaged, and the country has grown more deeply divided. While these problems are not all directly attributable to W., the buck stops with him.

The current debate, however, over whether or not to fund the troops in Iraq, is absolutely disgusting.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to support the attack in Iraq. The evidence that the U.N. and U.S. intelligence communities had pointed to a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program in Iraq, and the international community--mostly the U.S.--responded by invading the country and capturing (and eventually executing) Saddam Hussein.

War is a complicated thing, and, as the world has globalized, it has become increasingly more complicated. A decision to engage in military action have far-reaching affects, and when the most powerful country in the world is involved, these effects are bound to impact the entire planet.

So let's summarize our current situation:

1) Congress supported--overwhelmingly--military action in Iraq.
2) The war has been mismanaged, leading to an unstable and undesirable situation.
3) Popular support for the war has eroded in light of U.S. casualties.
4) Congress is now delaying funding for the troops, attempting to force the President into a withdrawl.

I have no desire to politicize this argument. Both parties have made mistakes in allowing things to arrive at their current state. But we cannot abandon a war just because the American people have grown tired of it. Here are a couple of facts that must be considered:

1) If we pull out of Iraq, we will leave chaos behing us. Warlords will capture the country, making it a foothold for terrorism and extremists, including the Iranian government.
2) We are at war, whether we are in Iraq or not. This is not a cold war, as was our standoff with the Soviet Union. The global terrorism community has attacked us on our soil and is constantly seeking ways and means to attack again.

September 11, 2001 may seem like a long time ago to some people. Grieving may have--for the most part--subsided, and America seems to be fully functioning again. But there are sure to be more threats on Americans, and leaving Iraq would surely provide a training and staging ground for an enemy that is currently at war with us.

So my question to anyone who favors a withdrawl is this: When would you support going back into Iraq? When we are attacked by terrorists who train there? When we discover that Iran is moving their own WMDs into Iraq to avoid detection from the U.N.? When genocide and torture become the only government?

Whether or not the decision to go to war in Iraq was right, the decision to leave now is wrong. This is not an opinion, this is not a political posturing, this is not conjecture. This is simple fact. Leaving Iraq now would be WRONG. It leaves America open to further attack, strengthens the Iranian position in the region, reinforces terrorism, and opens the door for genocide and tribal warfare. Might we save the lives of some American troops? Only in the short term, because it is a guarantee that if we leave that mess now, a bigger one will appear, and we will have to fight again.

Americans are competitive people. This has led to success in many arenas, but it is hurting us politically. The two parties are constantly looking for ways to win, instead looking for ways to do what is right. The American people themselves see us losing a war, and want to quit. They see American soldiers dying. They see poor leadership at the highest levels. But the fact remains that it will cost us more to leave than to stay, and just because it appears we are losing, that does not make it time to cut-and-run. Leaving now would result in chaos.

I beg both parties to stop the bickering and work together to find a solution. Many American people simply have not thought through the consequences of withdrawl. I hope, dear readers, that you have the common sense to see that pulling out does nothing positive for our country. Troops will return home only to be sent out again, and into much worse circumstances. Sometimes we have to let go of what we want emotionally and look at all the facts. This is one of those times.

Pulling out of Iraq is not honest change, it is a short-term response to a long-term problem that will weaken our national security and strengthen an enemy committed to killing not just our soldiers, but our children, our seniors, and our civilians. Like it or not--and I don't like it--we must stay until stability is achieved.

Simple Gifts

A few years ago, a friend of mine got involved with a campaign for a seat in the New Mexico State Congress. She knew the candidate well, and believed so firmly that he could accomplish wonderful things in politics that she sacrificed her time, energy, and resources to help get this young man elected. In fact, her entire circle of friends worked tirelessly to help this young candidate find his way into office.

Their efforts paid off. His no-nonsense, straightforward demeanor and honest answers to voters' questions helped him earn his place in the state legislature. Not long after he was elected, my friend called him to talk about how things were going and to offer her support for his re-election campaign. "I won't be running," he responded.

My friend was shocked, and told him that he simply had to run again, because of all the hard work that had gone into getting him elected in the first place and because the legislature needed more people of integrity. The young congressman spent the next several minutes explaining why he would never run for office again.

"For every one issue I believe is important, I have to vote for fifty things I do not believe in. The whole reason I got into politics was because I believed I could help clean things up, but I have to compromise everything I believe in to get anything done."

This problem is magnified several times over at the national level. Not only are most bills packed with special interest pork that bears little or no relation to the primary issue, but committees can add provisions to these bills after they have been voted on and signed into law by the President. In these cases, the democratic process is almost completely disregarded.

Special interests have more power than ever in Washington, D.C. As the federal government grows in size, spending, and complexity, it becomes easier to sneak provisions and policies into a system that has become far too vast and confusing for anyone to keep a watchful eye on its daily activities. This is, of course, exactly what politicians and special interests want, because this allows them to make deals and push their agendas through without anyone noticing.

The end result is that any time a meaningful piece of legislation is passed, several chunks of special interest payoffs are passed as well. To take one step forward, it seems we must take several steps back.

It used to be that judicial review could help limit this problem. Prior to and during the first years of FDR's presidency, the Supreme Court regularly struck down legislation that was overloaded with unnecessary provisions. The massive growth of the federal government, however, and the persistence of FDR's administration, made it impossible for the Supreme Court to perform the bulk of their duties hearing cases and still have the necessary time to undertake careful judicial review of the bills that are passed into law. Furthermore, several of these bills contain valid, important legislation, and to strike them down because of the special interest pork could be counterproductive.

The checks and balances so carefully laid out by the founders of this country have been struck down. The complexity and scope of the federal government has become so bloated that it is nearly impossible to effect honest change without conceding to dishonest, special interest pandering.

The solution is to demand that all bills are focused on a single issue. Instead of passing 20 or 30 new programs into law, narrow each new piece of proposed legislation down to a single issue. If this were accomplished, the American people and the media would be able to effectively keep track of who was voting for what and what the substance of each law was. Plans that require several different components would have to be voted on as several different bills, forcing the parties to come together to find solutions instead of trading special interest payoffs in order push their own agendas through. More transparency for the American people would allow them to see what their elected officials are really accomplishing and supporting.

Would this require more effort on the part of our lawmakers? You bet. Would this slow the system down and limit its ability to pass more laws? Absolutely. Could this make it more difficult to effect change? Yes, but that means it is also more difficult to pass laws that hurt our system. With single-issue bills, politicians could be held accountable for their every vote. Campaigns could include a clear list of a candidate's voting record instead of the misrepresentations that are currently produced by both incumbents and challengers.

It is time to slow down the federal government. It is time to make our elected officials take responsibility for the bills they vote for. It is time for honest change.

Home Rights

This is the second entry of a two-part series calling for the decentralization of our government.

It is wonderful to see America come together in times of crisis. Despite our vast differences as citizens of the most diverse nation on the planet, Americans support one another almost unconditionally when catastrophe strikes. Dating back to the Revolutionary War, Americans have always bound together in moments of extremity in order to protect one another's freedom. Most recently, the tragedy of 9/11 demonstrated the selfless patriotism that still burns deeply in Americans' hearts as millions of dollars in charity flooded to victims, Congress came together to search for solutions, and citizens abandoned their careers to join the military and protect our country from future attacks.

There is, however, an unfortunate bi-product of these periods. The federal government--and rightfully so--becomes the focal point of the nation as Americans look for leadership from the highest levels. New laws, policies, and agencies are instituted to deal with the crisis, and the citizenry happily accepts the inconveniences and costs associated with the emergency response. The problem has been that once stability is restored, the federal government has not relinquished the powers it seized to deal with the crisis.

The most obvious example of this came during the Great Depression. As discussed in a previous entry, FDR undertook a massive centralization of power during his presidency. His aim was to restore hope to the American people and mend the wounds of having more than a quarter of the country's workforce unemployed. Even with all of the agencies and programs FDR ushered into existence, the real catalyst for rebuilding the economy was World War II. Unfortunately, when the war was over and the economy booming, we forgot to shut down or streamline the policies and agencies that came into being in order to lead us out of the Great Depression.

Fast forward to 2007. Many crises and catastrophes later, the federal government has continued to centralize power and expand its role in the economy, education, and individual rights. The result is that each citizen's role in governance is diminished.

If you live in a town of 50,000 people, your vote is very powerful. A few voters and activists can turn the tide of an entire issue. The strength of that vote is diminished when issues go county-wide, because now there may be 200,000 voters. The dillution continues at the state level, where a single vote is now just a fraction of a millionth of the constituency. Finally, at the federal level, it is easy for a voter to feel that his or her vote has little impact.

Because the federal government has grown so substantially in size and strength over the last 80 years, Americans have grown increasingly disinterested in politics. As the state and local governments lose their hold over once-local issues such as education, voters feel a disconnect from issues. Furthermore, the grandiose promises of what is perceived to be an invincible institution (the U.S. government) trick citizens into believing that problems can and should be solved with national policies that sweep over the states, bringing prosperity, wisdom, and happiness to every citizen.

It is hard to feel responsible for America's problems as a single voter. It is hard to believe that you can impact an issue when even the federal government fails to achieve success in many of its endeavors. And so apathy sets in--a very natural and understandable response to our current political state.

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
I strongly encourage each reader to take the few minutes required to read the U.S. Constitution. Even if you cannot read the whole thing (it is very short), it is certainly worth one's time to take a look at article one, which actually lays out the powers of the federal government.

Combining the words of the Tenth Amendment with the text of the Constitution, one can clearly see how far beyond its charge the federal government has gone. There is not one word concerning public education in the Constitution. What is amazing, however, is how well the framers defined the role of the federal government. Two hundred years later, the powers listed in Article I, section viii of the historic document are still the most vital functions of the federal government, and should be among its only powers.

The states have crippled. Their share of taxes is relatively small, and their control over key issues--most importantly education--has diminshed substantially. Controls over agriculture, intrastate business, and law enformcement have been seized by the federal government, which threatens to pull its infrastructure funding from states if they do not pass certain laws.

Nearly every issue critical to everday life is now run by the few individuals who walk the halls of buildings located in the only part of the country that does not fall under state law (Washington, D.C.).

It is time to streamline the federal government and force it to focus on its most important duties, most of which concern national security. It is time to give the voter back some measure of significance by making local politics relevant again. It is time for honest change.

Traveling Salespeople

This entry is the first of a two-part series calling for the decentralization of our government.

You hang up on them almost every night when they call. The dreaded knock on the door is even worse. Spam blockers, shredding machines, mute buttons...we invest a lot of energy in avoiding advertisements and promotions that we find to be valueless.

What has government done for you lately? Has it improved your child's education? Has it made it easier for you to file and pay your taxes? You may be enjoying cuts now, but will the Bush tax changes last? Is Congress getting you a raise, improving your property value, lowering your gas bills, or making your neighborhood safer?

We should all be grateful for the protection of our military and security forces. We should applaud the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the DEA, and the other alphabet agencies that help keep America safe. Government can do a great job with national security.

But for handling the problems we seem to encounter everyday, our Washington, D.C. politicians just are not getting it done.

Politics has been reduced to a group of traveling salespeople. It is not about substance anymore, because the system is not being substantially changed. Other than national security and maybe cutting your taxes, what has the government done for you?

Americans' time is valuable. We do not vote enough because we do not feel it is worth our time. So little is accomplished on Capitol Hill. We are frustrated. And the result is that many of us have started to respond by tuning it out. The only way politicians can get people to the polls is to fire them up with single-issue rhetoric. "Get out of Iraq." Where was that before we went over? "Improve our schools." We're spending more now than ever before. "Save our unborn children." The Supreme Court has the decision-making power on this issue. "Health care for all." Our government already spends more per capita on health care than Canada, where they have a public system with universal coverage.

Propaganda, mud-slinging, personal attacks, rhetorical policies...this is all our national politicians offer us.

As noted earlier, however, we do have a wonderful military and security system. The infrastructure in this country is nothing short of amazing. There are brilliant minds throughout the State Department.

These are the items that require the focus of the federal government. Less talking and selling, and more results. Shifting more power to state and local governments would help accomplish this. We need fewer politicians who know little of our problems in our homes and cities, and more of the quiet, hard-working county clerk type of people in our system. More politicians who can relate to you and your issues in Scranton, PA or Peoria, IL. And we need less traveling salespeople that win elections by out advertising the competition, promising results that have not been delivered in over 70 years of big federal government.