Big Brother Isn't Just a Show on CBS

Health Care!

It's what the government thinks you need! So here they come to force it upon you. The U.S. House of Representatives (an ironic title since a recent poll only had 25% of respondents thinking the current bill should be passed) passed an unconstitutional bill which mandates all citizens of this great country be covered by health insurance. Sure, there are other aspects of this bill which are debatable and possibly beneficial. But, those are not the things which are going to make this entire exercise a total waste of time. The wholly unconstitutional mandate will get this bill (if it passes the Senate with the mandate still intact) hung up in the courts. So, I want to know why our "representatives" are wasting our tax dollars to such a degree as to spend months developing and debating something which will never become law.

Our government loves wasting our tax dollars. That, at least, is clear to me. What I don't know is why we keep letting them do it. They vote themselves pay increases, then don't read any of the bills they vote on. They make sure they don't have term limits, and then spend entire years campaigning. We are their bosses. So why don't we do our jobs and make sure they do theirs?

Here is my proposal: All Congressional pay is to be based upon votes registered. No vote no pay. There will be a base. About $30,000 should do. Then, each vote they make will give them a bonus, I'm comfortable with $50 per vote. Since congress votes on thousands of bills each year, this could work out to a hefty pay check. But it won't. The reason is I would also require a test be taken before a vote can be registered. The test would judge simply whether the congressmen have an understanding of all aspects of the bill. Guessing would be punished like the good old SAT. But BW, how will we pay for all the tests to be produced? Simple. Eliminate one staff position from each Senator and Representative. That will pay for most of the staff needed to produce the tests, the rest will be covered by the decrease in pay for the congressmen themselves because most of them won't vote enough to match their current salaries. Voting with the actual leaning of the country should be rewarded too. That one I haven't worked out the logistics of yet because polling is so easily misleading and misused.

This proposal would make a Congressional seat a little less cushy. That brings up another way Congress wastes our money: The need to be in the same place at the same time. No more. Telecommuting is the only way. No more flying all over on our dollar. With today's technology there is no reason to be physically there. Twitter could cover a simple "Yea" or "Nay" and more involved debates could be conducted via Skype. Putting this into place is not only cost effective, it's a green policy. I know they do some things in committees which are classified, and those committees would need to continue to meet in person, but most things our representatives do are public record and therefore need not be encrypted.

These things are a start, but one more thing will get our representatives to represent us better. And this is the least radical of all the ideas set forth here. Term limits. Term limits take lobbies down a few notches and put Congress back in the service of the people instead of special interests. I have had people tell me that the opposite is true and lobbies gain more power if there are term limits. They are idiots. It's that simple. Ask Big Oil if they want term limits imposed on the Senators they have in their pockets. Their answer will make the need for term limits very clear.

None of this will happen, not because it shouldn't, but because Congress won't let it. It's their decision, not ours. I know I wouldn't vote myself out of a job. Would you?

The Debates

I never did say anything about the debates. The reason being that the debates never said anything to me. Nobody was a runaway winner and whoever you were pulling for probably looked better to you. So, there it is, my complete analysis of all the debates.

Racing the Race

I truly believe that this election, only hours away, will come down to one thing, and it is very sad indeed. I know it shouldn’t affect an election with such great importance to the future of our country (everyone keeps saying that as if every election isn’t important), but I believe it will. That one thing, it, is race. With African Americans accounting for roughly 13 to 14 percent of the population and with 10% of all voters saying they won’t vote for a black man, what is Obama’s true statistical chance at winning? Let’s assume that we have the highest recorded voter turnout in history, 65%. And let’s say that 70% of blacks of voting age turn up at the polls. This means that the “black vote” will account for roughly 15% of the overall vote, a four percent jump from four years ago. And, if the polls are correct, we may as well give Senator Obama all of that 15% statistically speaking. Well, that should put Obama up by five percent overall and into the White House. However, roughly 35% of this country’s population resides in the, historically racist, south. I’m not saying that everyone in the south is racist, but denying that it still exists is pure ignorance. Always remember the first step is admitting the problem. With McCain leading 51% to 44% among white voters, I believe that many states currently polling slightly to Obama will be swayed by this very thing. States like Florida, North Carolina, and even Virginia will move into the “red” column. I also believe Colorado and Nevada, despite being a light blue color currently, will be painted red come tomorrow night. I even believe that Ohio may fall into the red, giving John McCain 274 electoral votes and Barack Obama 264. Not all of this is necessarily fueled by race, but I do believe, if this scenario unfolds, the election will be had by John McCain because he is more susceptible to sun burns than is Barack Obama, and that, my friends, is wrong.

The numbers herein are based on US Census Bureau Data and the last Gallup Poll before Election Day.

Why Congress Bailed Out

Hurray partisan politics! Thank you so much for sending the New York Stock Exchange to its largest freefall ever. Thanks to the House sending the $700 billion plan to a vote without having the numbers on either side to carry the issue, the bill that looked as good as passed scared Wall St. into a huge hole. Their is only one reason either party would put this to a vote without knowing it would pass: elevating ones own party against the other. It is petty, and in this case horribly detrimental and irresponsible. Another couple days of amendments and hammering out details would have proved much less problematic. When people see a sure thing go down in flames it worries them that a deal may never get struck. I personally am very torn on this issue. I see the credit crunch and the gap left by fannie, freddie, and aig, as a serious economic burden. I also see $700 billion of funny money as a serious economic burden. We don't have that money to spend, and our children and grandchildren shouldn't have to spend it for us. Why don't we give one one-hundredth of that money to the lenders who didn't overextend and give too many risky loans in order that they may lend to entrepreneurs and families who will pay them back with interest?

Partisan

Partisan:

This word is a champion at describing our national political landscape. Dictionary.com defines it thus:

–noun 1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2. Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, esp. a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.

There are also two adjective definitions but they are both "of, or pertaining to," the two nouns, so they are omitted here. I have so many problems with our partisan system because it fits both definitions surprisingly well. Let me break down why they fit and why I wish they didn't.

"An adherent or supporter..." I have no problem with people supporting a cause. I have a huge problem with people who are blindly adherent to a "group, party, or cause." Our nature should preclude us from this herd mentality.

"...Biased, emotional allegiance." Wow. Looking at this part of the definition makes my head spin. We should always show emotional allegiance to issues and causes we truly believe in. Not to a political party whose sole interest is to remain in power. You should vote your conscience and your heart, not your party. People who get behind every position which their party represents are narrow-minded sheep. Therefore, most of Washington, both sides of the aisle, are narrow-minded sheep and should be treated as such and replaced with the more evolved free thinkers.

"...Irregular troops...harassing...an occupying army." A group simply doing everything it can to hold its ground and if possible gain a little territory too. This is what a political party is and does. And are they ever irregular!

That being said, I am a registered Republican. Not because I ever want the overturn of Roe v. Wade (I don’t). Not because I am against gay marriage (I’m not). Not because I support the war in Iraq (mixed bag). Not even because I find their Vice Presidential candidate to be the most attractive politician in our history (not saying much really). No, it's because I agree with one thing. I know that big time taxing on big business actually takes more money out of my pocket than the business itself. And, as far as I can see, the only legislation that will be very different depending on who wins is fiscal legislation. And I want to choose what charities I spend money on, not support the families of workers laid off due to higher taxes at the top.

But don't, please don't, take this as gospel. Read, watch the news, inform yourself, and decide what matters to you. Then figure out if that issue is really going to be, in practice not speeches, treated any differently by each party. If it is, then you know who to vote for (or against).