A Jumble of Current Events

It has been a while since my last post. I have been rather busy working a new job that requires extensive travel. I have yet to have enough airline status to get a seat wherein I can actually open my laptop on one of those tiny trays designed to make the terrible food they sell you at a high prices look like more food than it actually is.

I had been asked to comment on the Wisconsin standoff. Here is my take on it. - 

 

Public Unions... I believe that they are an oxymoron. Unions were originally organized to get better working conditions and pay for their members from the "Evil Robber Barons". In this relationship there is a natural limit to what the Unions could get from said Evil Capitalist. That limit was the viability of the business. If the Evil Capitalist gave the Unions more than the Business could bear, it went bankrupt. There is no limit to what a public Union can receive from a Municipality, State or the Federal Govt. They have bottomless pockets, or so they believe.

 This is the scenario which caused the state of Wisconsin (among others) to put itself into 3.2 billion dollars of debt. It goes like this:

1.  Corrupt Politician gets huge campaign donations from Public Union
2.  Corrupt Politician gives Public Union exorbitant pay raises and benefits
3.  As a reward, Public Union gives Corrupt Politician huge campaign donations from member dues, and Union Members work for campaign free which helps politician get elected over and over again.
4.  See number 2

This type of Union Political corruption has led to municipal employees of all types (Janitors, Bus Drivers etc.) that make six figure salaries and retire with high five, low six figure incomes at ages as low as 50. In Wisconsin, the average state employee paid only 6% of their Health insurance premium, and nothing for their retirement. The change that the Union was fighting was that they would have to pay 12% toward their health insurance and 8.5% toward their retirement. They also lost the ability to use "Collective Bargaining" or the ability to strike without losing their jobs. If Collective Bargaining had not been rescinded, the changes to the health insurance and retirement plans wouldn't be worth the paper the law was written on. They could just strike to get them back.

-- Whoa, there big fella, don't you mean that the Unions lost their "Right" to "Collective Bargaining"?--

 Hold on; let me look at my pocket Constitution real quick...... Nope, I don't see any right to Collective Bargaining in the Constitution.. Let's give it the inalienable rights test.. Is it something that requires the action or resources of someone other than the individual exercising it? Would or could the use of this so called "Right" infringe upon the rights of another? If the answer is Yes and Yes... I am sorry, it isn't a right, it is a privilege. When privileges are abused, they can and must be revoked.

  A simple illustration of the above would be the "Right" to health care. In order to exercise this "Right" you first have to have someone or some entity that will provide the healthcare. How can you have this "Right" if there are no Doctors or treatment available? The answer is you can't, therefore it isn't a "Right". On the other hand "Free Speech" is a right. Speaking does not require anyone but the speaker's participation. I may say whatever I wish. Of course, no one has to listen. I have the right to speak, not the right to force someone to listen. Then again if what I say offends someone, I must accept the consequences of my actions. The only entity that may not (within certain limits) take action against me for my speech is the U.S. Govt.. Something that most Actors and Musicians don't get, when they say something stupid, and there is a public backlash, they whine about their right to Free Speech (The Dixie Chicks come to mind).

 

  By the way, Wisconsin is projected to be in the "black" by the end of this fiscal year. Many Wisconsin school districts went from deficits to surpluses within 3 months of the passage of this law.

 

 The Iowa Debate: 

  Big Winner: Mitt Romney -

                He is the current front runner. As such he is like the Champ in Boxing. To beat the Champ, you have to decisively beat him, you must either knock him out or at least knock him down multiple times. A split decision almost always goes to the Champ. No one laid a glove on Mitt.. By the way, what kind of name is "Mitt" anyway?

                 -- You are tipping your hand BigMan.. You like Romney!--

                 No.. I don't think so. I received an email the other day from my state Attorney General asking me to join him in campaigning for Romney as he had just been appointed the Romney State Campaign Chief. I replied that I would not be supporting Mr. Romney as I was hoping a conservative may yet run. Further, in my opinion, Romney has at least three strikes against him:

1. Massachusetts Obamney Care
2. He believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming (caused by man) and supports Cap and Trade. 
3. Amnesty for illegal aliens.                

  Big Loser: Tim Pawlenty -

                I spoke to MBB (my big brother) on Friday evening about the Debate, I then opined that Pawlenty was the biggest loser because he looked like he was beating up on the girl (M.Bachmann). It did him no good. He should have been going after Romney. He coined the term "Obamney Care" and was afraid to whip it out twice. Once in the New Hampshire debate and again Thursday night. He has since folded up his tent because of his poor showing in the straw poll.

               

 Winner: Michele Bachmann -

                She ended the debate firmly in Second place which was reflected in the straw poll. Romney and his campaign didn't really play the straw poll game so his poor showing was no big deal. I told Big Mama (just a nickname not a description) that most of what she said was designed to get big applause lines. Several times she waited and they didn't come.. I think she would make a decent VP, but as of now, I am not impressed. 

I say she ended the debate in second place because Saturday Rick Perry announced, he is now the primary challenger to Romney.

               

 Loser: Ron Paul -

                As a Libertarian, I like most of what Ron Paul says. Then he goes and says the most moronic things. Like "I would not be worried about Iran having Nuclear weapons any more than I would be worried about Russia and China" (I am paraphrasing so don't send in a complaint that I misquoted him). That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. The leaders of China and Russia don't want their countries to be turned into sheets of radio-active glass. Ahmadinejad is crazy, he wants a nuclear war. He is a twelver. He believes that the earth must be engulfed in fire and blood for the twelfth imam to come back and create Islamic heaven on earth.

               

 Big Was he really there?:  Rick Santorum -

                The Former Senator from Pennsylvania says the right things at the right times.. No one hears him or cares. He is one of the Marathon Runners that is good enough, but not good enough to Win/Place/or Show.

               

If he was only more Consistent: Newt Gingrich -

                I actually met the former speaker while on a transcontinental flight about 7 years ago. I sat across the aisle from him in first class. I spent most of the five hour flight reading a book by Ann Coulter. One of the chapters in this book described the typical Liberal/Democrat/Progressive tactic of trying to make an opponent appear stupid or incompetent (George W. Bush). If that isn't possible, then the individual is obviously evil. She used the Time Magazine cover "The Gingrich That stole Christmas" as an example. Shortly before the Airplane landed I looked over at the former Speaker, he was reading a history book and high-lighting passages. He happened to look up at me and I smiled and said "Mr. Speaker, I had forgotten how much of an evil Son-of-a-bitch you were." He was momentarily taken aback until he noticed the book I had been reading. He then smiled and for the next 15 minutes we talked politics. He gave me his autograph on a business card which I believe is still in that book somewhere in my library. Anyway, Newt, like Ron Paul, has some of the most intelligent and common sense ideas. Then he pulls a "What the hell was he thinking!!". Your honor I submit his Public Service Announcement on the couch with Nancy "You gotta Pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi on Global Warming as evidence...

               

Was he really there?: John Huntsman -

                I don't trust this guy as far as I could drop kick him. First he accepted the position of Ambassador to China from PapaDoc, No small job in the Administration. Then he quits two years later to run against the individual that gave him the job. Why would he accept a high profile position from this administration? Why would he then quit? He is either an ungrateful back stabber or a plant.

               

I wish he had more substance: Herman Cain -

                I have heard him speak on several radio shows. I like what he says and what he has done in the business world. He didn't know what the "Right of Return" was as it pertains to the Palestinians. I am a simple IT professional and I know what it is. You would think that he would have taken a crash course on Foreign Affairs.

               

The 400lb Gorilla in the Room: Rick Perry -

                Don't know enough about him yet. He has been a successful Governor of one of the largest states, Texas. Texas has the lowest unemployment rate of all of the states.. He is or was in favor of amnesty for illegals so that may be a strike against him. He also received more than 700 write in votes in the straw poll without campaigning or having anyone on the ground in Iowa. Romney received 65 votes.

               

               

     The Budget/Debt Deal          

               

 One last thing, the recent budget surrender.. I mean deal. There has been an article written that has simplified the amounts to proportions that are more easy to comprehend. This article has been referenced on several radio talk shows. I tried to find the original article to provide a link to no avail. Here is a close approximation:

    

     Federal Budget 101

    

      The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

    

         U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000

         Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000

         New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

         National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

         Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

    

     It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

     

    

         Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700

         Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200

         Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500

         Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

         Amount cut from the budget: $385

    

     So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending?

    

     It is a start, although hardly a solution.

    

Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt).