Category Archives: Uncategorized

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the rational political waters…

Having earlier been shamed into hiding by the actual existence of the President’s birth certificate, the Birthers have now re-emerged with a new chant. No longer able to hold steadfast to their claims of “He’s a Kenyan!”, a new charge now emerges.

On the day of the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, the big news of the day had nothing to do with the surprise victories of Rick Santorum.  The real news was the Public Policy Polling results of GOP voters from those states:

.

“Do you believe that President Obama is a Christian, Muslim, or are you not sure?”

Mississippi GOP Voters:            Alabama GOP Voters:

Muslim……….52%                        Muslim……….45%                              

Christian………12%                       Christian………14%

Not Sure………36%                       Not Sure………41%

.

Come on, guys! Are you kidding me? A practicing Muslim? Is this really the best you can do?

Do you really want to be associated with those that can only be characterized as either morons or bigots?

There are a host of very defensible reasons why you may not like – perhaps even detest — our President. And nearly all of these reasons fall into the broad category of “reasonable.”

What happened to honest, conventional and intelligent criticism? You know, the “he’s too liberal… too inexperienced… inconsistent… apologetic…professorial… fiscally irresponsible…wrong on foreign policy…damaging to our values…etc.”

“Obama the Muslim?”

Really? You’ve got to do better than that.

Please.

.

I have read a lot lately about why Rick Santorum is unacceptable as a candidate for President. The general consensus, I have learned, is that he is disqualified from office because he is simply not “mainstream” enough.

While I can easily think of several very reasonable reasons why one may not like him as a candidate, not being “mainstream” enough strikes me as a bit odd.

Do we really want a candidate whose “values and philosophies are in keeping with our prevailing cultural trends” — so-called “mainstream”?

If so, our mainstream candidate would more likely:

• be divorced
• an absentee father
• tattooed with an array of fake Asian symbols
• only high-school educated
• watch over 5 hours of television per day
• be a bit too familiar with the criminal justice system
• unable to identify our Vice-President (but knows the entire cast of Jersey Shore)
• can name the Three Stooges but not the three branches of government
• drinks a six-pack a day
• last book read: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition

If this new mainstream-edness, though, really is your leading criteria for Leader-of-the-Free-World, I would strongly recommend you consider supporting the candidacy of either Snoop Dog or Kim Kardashian.

*

********

*

[Note: Before you attack me with charges of elitism , I must sadly admit I may be a bit mainstream myself. I don’t think, though,  you’d want me to be your President.]

*

In preparation for this short article, I have just completed exhaustive field research regarding the intellect of the American public.

.

THE DATA:

.

1.         > 75% of the public can name at least 2 of the 7 Disney dwarfs.

            < 25% can name 2 Supreme Court justices.

.

2.         > 75% can name the Three Stooges.

            < 20% can name the 3 branches of government.

.

3.         > 99% of all Republican voters are so well-versed in the complexities of constitutional jurisprudence, that each has thoughtfully concluded that the Individual Mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 exceeds the scope and purvey of both the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause of Article 1 of the United States Constitution, and is, a fortiori, clearly unconstitutional.

.

 ********

.

How lucky for the Republican Establishment that the average American — one who cannot name our Vice-President, but knows all the cast members of Jersey Shore — has such a depth of knowledge regarding Constitutional adjudication.

And how embarrassing for me to now admit that whenever I had heard that Republican rant (“We must repeal ObamaCare because of that damned Socialist’s unconstitutional Individual Mandate”), I had just assumed it was simply a raw display of hatred for anything Obama-esque.

I now understand that what I took for a rant is simply the enlightened legal assessment resulting from each Republican’s thorough and conscientious analysis of this extremely complex Constitutional issue.

I’m so embarrassed.

.

…

Why is Newt leading the polls for the Republican nomination?

There are lots of pundits with lots of theories — and all miss the point.

There’s the “Flavor-of-the-Month” theory, the “Anti-Romney” theory, the “Newt-The-Conservative” theory and even the wacky “Everyone-Likes-A-Redemption-Story” theory.

All nonsense.

The answer is much simpler and far less intellectual:

The Right is angry. They are revved up and mad as hell. They want that Neo-Colonial Kenyan-Fascist-European-Secular-Apologetic-Food-Stamp Socialist President thrown out of office. Preferably, after a thorough beating.

Who then do you call on to get rid of such a monster?

.

     Mitt: “The Gentleman”                            Newt: “The Destroyer”

.

In the corner to my left, we have Mitt “The Gentleman” Romney. When really provoked during a debate, he is liable to go crazy and actually tell Obama that “his policies have been rather ineffective.”

In the corner to my right, we have Newt “The Destroyer” Gingrich. During a presidential debate, this flame throwing pugilist may have to be physically restrained — anxious to draw blood, leave scars and teach that Kenyan a lesson.

It’s really that simple. The basest of emotions. The crudest of responses.

So please spare me the nonsense theories about Newt-the-Conservative or Newt-the-Outsider or Newt-the-Family-Values-Guy. Let’s call him what he really is:

A hired thug.

…

.
It’s official.

The Republican Party simply does not intend to defeat President Obama in 2012. At least that’s the only explanation I can find to account for the Republican Party’s choice of successive front-runners over these past few months.

Despite having two serious Republican candidates capable of defeating President Obama (Romney & Huntsman), the new Republican Party insists on backing candidates who could never win a general election.

This ever-changing list of poll-leaders far more resembles the cast of Gilligan’s Island than a list of serious presidential contenders capable of defeating even a beleaguered sitting President.

Sara Palin, no…

Donald Trump, no…

Michele Bachmann, no..

Rick Perry, no…

Herman Cain

Let’s meet the cast. Shall we?
.

.
We start with The Donald, our very own Thurston Howell III. Playing the role perfectly, he bragged of his billions, showed his fortitude by formally declaring Obama a Kenyan and then explained how the United States of America should invade Libya and “take their oil, damn it.” His rollercoaster rise to the top and then directly to the bottom took only about three weeks.

(Ready to embrace Romney or Huntsman? Nope.)

Next up was Michele Bachman as “Lovey” Howel III, Thurston’s intellectually-challenged wife, who reminded us that our slave-owning founding fathers fought tirelessly until slavery was abolished. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, she also recently discovered that Libya has been secretly located in Africa and that the Swine Flu is transmitted by Democrats. Her meteoric descent from the heights to the bottom of the polls set new records.

(Now ready for Romney or Huntsman? Nope.)

The torch was then passed directly to Gilligan himself, Governor Rick Perry, who immediately channeled Bush II, and then proceeded to light himself on fire. This secession-talking, pistol-wielding-while-out-jogging Governor initiated his campaign with allegations of treason against the Fed Chair. He then advanced to debate performances that made even “W” seem articulate. Most recently, he was able to completely overshadow the grand debut of his own economic plan by renewing Birther allegations, “just for fun.” Perhaps conservative commentator Brit Hume said it best, “Perry threw up all over himself.” Another record-setting poll-leader implosion.

(Must now finally be ready for Romney or Huntsman? Not a chance.)

Finally, the most serious candidate has now overtaken them all, The Skipper, Herman Cain. And like The Skipper, he really is quite charismatic and endearing. Also like the Skipper, though, he is fully capable of immediately shipwrecking everyone on board. As a brave Captain, he is not afraid to speak his mind, letting all know – in no uncertain terms – that he is a man of principle… or at least principals … as he is fiercely pro-life and pro-choice, he would and would never negotiate with terrorists, he might electrocute or might not electrocute illegal immigrants, and he would be pleased to meet the leader of Uz-Beki-Beck-Bek-Stan-Stan, whomever that might be.

And lastly, let us not forget the ever-popular Sarah Palin, that self-proclaimed Rogue-Mama-Grizzly – a woman incapable of locating Russia on a map, or answering that trick question (“What do you read?”), or completing even one term as Governor of our least populous state. Ever-ready to help educate the lame-stream media, she is always full of unique insights – be it complex thinking about our North Korean allies or uncovering new and previously-unknown historical facts about Paul Revere.

Is this really the cast of characters the new Republican Party is choosing from to run against President Obama?

Given a population of 300 million to select from, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the nominee from the Republican Party will be the brightest, most talented, most experienced, gifted, serious, wise and proven man (or woman) around? Aren’t these the qualities we would absolutely demand in our President during such difficult times?

Herman Cain for Pizza Czar? Sure!

Herman Cain for leader of the free world? Are you nuts?

The new Republicans have bypassed all serious candidates in favor of a cast of clowns – a group of candidates that could never win a general election. Such inane thinking on the part of this new Republican Party can only mean one thing to me:

After serious soul-searching, prayer and personal reflection, the Republican Party has decided who the leader of the free world should be during these perilous times:

Barack Obama.

.

As one who often does not side with Republicans on issues of taxation, I have to admit that I’m a bit annoyed with the Democrat’s latest mantra — “those rich are not paying their fair share of taxes, damn it!”

What does that even mean — fair share?

Apparently, America’s upper class are not paying their fair share in taxes because multi-billionaire Warren Buffett’s income tax rate is less than his secretary’s (although, in all fairness, I should mention that he still payed over 8 million dollars in taxes this year).

That certainly seems a bit odd, but is that actually the rule for the wealthy or just for the few Warren Buffetts of the world?

I find facts are often helpful in such discussions: (Source: CBO)

• The richest 1% pay a 31% effective tax rate (far greater than a secretary).
• The top 10% of earners pay nearly 70% of all US income taxes.
• The average worker pays less than a 14% effective tax rate.

So, that rich guy who is paying only 31% of his income (over double the average national percentage, who is part of that small group that is paying 70% of all US taxes) is not paying his “fair share”?

That selfish bastard!

Wait a second….

Perhaps, though, what the Democrats mean to say is a bit different.

Maybe what they mean to say goes something like this:

“In these desperate economic times, part of our national recovery requires additional taxation to generate desperately needed revenues. As the wealthy have done far better than the poor and middle class over the past generation and are in a far better position to further assist their country, we now appeal to the wealthiest amongst us to make an even  greater personal sacrifice on behalf of their country– to pay an even greater percentage of their incomes to help save a country that has been so good to them. In return, we will honor this extra generous sacrifice with a pledge to use these additional revenues in as efficient and effective  manner as possible.”

Oh, in that case, I understand.

And agree.

.

.

“We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are

not, however, entitled to our own facts.”

-Patrick Moynihan

 Debate on Climate Change revolves around three main questions:

1. Are we experiencing unusual changes in climate?
2. If unusual changes are occurring, is this change at least partly man-made?
3. If changes are occurring and they are man-made, do we have the desire and ability to counteract these changes?.

The first two questions are simply issues of fact, not opinion. While discovering the facts may not be simple, one’s personal opinions and motivations are irrelevant in answering these two questions.

The third question, on the other hand, involves opinions regarding the prioritization of human and economic interests. It involves extremely complex issues for which one’s personal opinions will and should play a major role.

It logically follows then, that we should all be to find agreement as to the results of the first two questions, for we are simply not entitled to our own set of facts. After scientific assessment by the world’s leading experts (let us please leave it to the experts), we should all be able to agree on whether unusual changes in the climate are occurring and whether man is at least partly responsible for such changes. And since no one ever fully agrees on anything, I suggest a 95% consensus rate should be considered dispositive.

We can then save all our energy for the debate and arguments regarding what we should or should not do to counteract it –that is if and only if questions #1 and #2 are answered in the affirmative by the experts.

So let’s please stop are arguing:

• whether temperatures are increasing;
• whether polar ice caps are melting;
• whether sea levels are rising; or
• whether atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing.

These are just issues of fact that have been addressed by the world’s leading experts. Let’s instead save our debating for the third and most relevant issue. Such a plan will not only make us appear far more intelligent as a society, but may actually allow us to reach a consensus and act (or not act) accordingly — presumably in all our best interests.

Whatever they might be.

“”I would walk away from any financial compromise that offered     $10.00 in spending cuts for every $1.00 increase in revenues.”

.

So stated each and every candidate running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States during their live televised debate last night.

As I have been taught by my parents that it is unkind to call someone a liar, I will instead point out that this statement is eerily reminiscent of several other famous quotes we may have heard in the past:

*

*

.

 “I believe that Nicotine is not addictive.”

.

.

.“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

.

.

“This little beauty was owned by a little old Granny
who only drove it to Church on Sundays.”

.

.

    “My dog ate it.”

 (Regarding the whereabouts of their homework)

.

.

You may draw your own conclusions. If, however, you still believe the Republican claim to be credible, I wonder if you might be interested in purchasing this little bridge in Brooklyn that I have the exclusive rights to….

.

*****

Against the advice of my friends and family who will now fear for my personal safety, I am writing this post as an open letter to the wild packs of bicyclists that race through our city streets, leaving a bloody trail of death and destruction in their wake. OK, so I’m a little prone to exaggeration, but please hear me out.

I do not object to anyone’s right to recklessly endanger his own life on streets that have repeatedly proved fatal to previous cyclist over the years. I do not even object to sharing our streets with riders who do not understand most of the customary rules of the road.  I do, however, have a few basic objections I would like to raise.

First, while I am sure that casually chatting shoulder to shoulder is a vital part of your sport, riding two and three abreast in the middle of the road while rows of cars back up behind you is unacceptable. Additionally, as your mothers should have taught you, it is inappropriate to yell hostile profanities to drivers who politely request that you ride single file.

Red lights really do mean stop and yield signs mean yield. And please refrain from barreling over the elderly in crosswalks. While I realize your really neat outfits and accessories make you feel special, it is arrogant to believe your hobby should interfere in the lives of those around you.

I have thought very long and hard trying to understand why otherwise rational and intelligent people would behave this way and I am working on several theories.  Maybe this is just the cyclists’ version of road rage we have been reading so much about. Or maybe these packs of riders are simply adopting the aggressive pack mentality of other species (e.g. the wild dingoes of Australia). My latest theory is that perhaps those excessively tight stretchy pants are somehow cutting off the flow of vital oxygen to the brain.

In any case, to those of you guilty of the above, please consider a few small changes to your routine. Ride single file. Stop when you’re supposed to. Consider a bike path and try to refrain from giving the finger to anyone who voices any objection to your habits.

Lastly, I realize that a letter of this variety will undoubtedly generate a certain amount of hate mail. To those of you who do insist on attacking my position, please do me one favor before responding:

Stop for one minute. Take off your tight pants and breathe deeply. Now doesn’t that feel much better?

Thank you for your time.

.

*

I begin this article with a challenging test of visual perception and acuity:

.

(Please take your time and look very, very closely)

*

*

*

Can you find anything wrong with these gentlemen?

*(Scroll Down)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

…..

*

If this challenge has stumped you, please stop reading right here. I offer you my apologies for wasting your time and wish you a good day.

If, however, you find these photos a bit alarming, please feel free to continue reading.

********

.

The Signs of Decay

While these photos rather flippantly illustrate our degenerating societal norms, much more sobering evidence exists to better demonstrate our shockingly rapid descent into societal decay. Only a cursory review of the data is required:

.

FROM 1960 TO 2000:

.

Illegitimate Births:…………………….Increased over 500%

Single Parent Families:………………Increased over 250%

Teen Suicide Rate:…………………..Increased over 250%

Juvenile Violent Crime:………………Increased over  300%

Child Abuse:…………………………..Increased over 500%

Abortion:………………………………Increased over 800%

Divorce:………………………………..Increased over 120%

Sexually Transmitted Diseases:……Increased over 250%

.

Recognizing these signs of our decay is easy.  Addressing the cause of this decay, however, seems to immediately induce a collective national myopia. Unless we feel all these effects are purely coincidental, clearly something major changed in our country in only 40 years that led to these tragic and devastating consequences.

What then is the root cause of this damage?  We are familiar with the usual claims:

.

“Government slashed funding to the poor.” No. Public funding as a percentage of GDP increased over 2000%.

“Government cut spending on public education.” No. Spending per student increased 280% (inflation-adjusted).

“Systemic discrimination against minorities increased, disenfranchising the underprivileged.” No. The Civil Rights Movement actually took root during these years.

.

Strangely, the answer is actually quite simple. Admitting it, however — actually daring to say it out loud, makes us very, very uncomfortable.

Before I am ready to even type it here, let me illustrate a bit further:

n…………..nn..COLUMN A:nnnnnnn……..nn…COLUMN B:

……………..(“TRADITIONAL”)……………………..(“MODERN”)

.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnCommitment & Fidelitynnnnnnnnnn.$50 Bucks & Goodbye!

.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

…………………Self-Sacrifice………………………Self-Expression

.

.nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnnnnSelf-LessnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnSelf-Esteem

.

..nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnn.nnnnPantsnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnPantsed

mm

nnnn.nnnnnnnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnnnMy Three SonsnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnMy Three Moms

.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn…nnnnn

nnnnnn.n.nnnnScandalous!nnnnnnnnn.nnnn.nnnn.nnHo-Hum

.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.n

nnnnnnn.nnnThose Crazy Kids!nnnnnnnnnn(What Can I Possibly Add?)

.

nnnnnnnnnnn.nnnnnn

…………..……OutThe Old………………………..IWith The New

.

………….……………………

………………..Let’s Go Team!…………………Put Down the Binoculars!

.

nnnnnnnnnnnn.nnn…nn.nnn

nnnnnnnnnnnnn…Pumpednnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.nnn….Inflated

.

nnnnnnnnnnn.nnnnn

nnnn.nn…………..Old Habitsnnnnnnnnnnn.nn.nn.NNew Habits

.

nnnnnnnn.nnnn.nn

nnnnnnnnnnChildren As Treasurennnnnnn.nnnChildren As Chattel

.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

nnnn……..nnnnnnAuthenticnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.nnCounterfeit

nnnnnnnn

n………….nnnnnn….nn

nnnnn……………..IImplants………………………(Non-Publishable)

.

nnnnnnnnn.nn…nnnn

………………………..Loop………………………………Loopy

.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

n………………nGold Standardnnnnnn.nnn..n..nnnnn50 Cents

.

nnn.nnnnnnnn..nnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnnn.nLoving Fathersnnnnnnnnnnnn..nVanishing Fathers

It’s the CULTURE, Stupid!  

So what actually did happen over these 40 years that led to this decay?  Quite simply, we managed to completely discard the very basis of what made our country great — our Culture of Traditional Family Values.

Does anyone doubt that the values illustrated in Column A are those that lead to virtue, meaningful happiness and a stable society? Conversely, does anyone doubt where the modern cultural values in Column B lead? Which would you wish upon your children?

Acknowledgement that the abandoning of traditional family values has led to societal decay is not a position that should be left to the Radical-Right-Wing-Orthodox-Republican-Conservative-Christian. This has nothing to do with political affiliation or religiosity. It’s just plain common sense. Facts are facts.

We have created a generation of children raised without fathers. Young men and women who believe self-expression, self-esteem and self-indulgence are more important than self-sacrifice and self-control. Where children are chattel, not treasure. Where young women no longer even aspire to marriage or having a father for their children. Where duty, loyalty and fidelity are no longer part of the national vocabulary. Where life’s most pressing concerns include where to locate one’s next tattoo. The effects of these changes are devastating and will only exponentially increase with each successive generation.

.

Fight the Good Fight

In medicine, treating the patient first requires identifying the disease. So too with this societal plague. So enough with the inaccurate assessments as to what ails us. The disease is right under our nose. Lets call it what it is.

To do so, though, will require us to not be blinded by one of our uniquely wonderful American instincts: our desire to be be tolerant, magnanimous and open-minded. While these wonderful qualities –when applied responsibly — permit a richness of diversity in our society, when applied blindly, they lead to ruin. Where the wearing of a traditional Indian sari should be welcomed, wearing your thong to school must not be. In the case of values and culture, we simply cannot let our fear of offending someone prohibit us from standing up for what we know to be right. The consequences are far too great.

So the next time you hear someone say,”Our schools are failing our children!”, set them straight.  Tell them the problem with our schools has very little to do with funding, class size or teachers’ unions. It’s our modern culture — a culture that has thrown out traditional family values— that is failing our children.

And the next time you see this [below], please do not call it a “form of personal expression”.

…..

Just call it what it is.

Wrong.

.

.

.

.

.mmmm

Clearly, Jon Huntsman did not receive the RNC talking points memo on how to refer to President Obama.

Conspicuously absent from his campaign kick-off speech were the obligatory references to Obama as the Socialist-anti-American-European-Colonial-Secular-Fascist-Kenyan-pal-of-terrorists-apologist-freedom-killing-anti-American-nonexceptionalist-Mau-Mau-food-stamp President.

Instead, he had the audacity to declare:

.

“I respect the president of the United States… He and I have

a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love.

But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who

will be the better president, not who’s the better American.”

.

While most of us still know little about Jon Hunstman, the candidate, he has now shown himself to be the one civil, mature adult in the room.

A civil candidate taking the high road. Wow.

This, of course, begs the question: Will the voting public — one that knows the names of all the characters on “Jersey Shore” but not the name of our Vice-President — value such a lofty approach?

It sure would be nice to think so.

In politics, though, the high road is usually a dead end.

.

I will attempt to write the very first political piece about Congressman Weiner that does not use a single pun or double entendre.

Wish me luck. Here it goes:

***

(8th attempt — still unsuccessful…)

*****

Nope. Can’t be done.

.

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

With these words, Lady Liberty welcomed millions of our desperate and frightened grandparents to the shores of Ellis Island.

The disclaimer, “Unless you’re a Mexican laborer”, was apparently a recent addendum.

******

Rare in politics is there an overwhelming national problem for which there is actually a simple, practical and highly effective solution. Illegal immigration is this rare beast.

In fact, the solution here is so darn practical, it’s really difficult to argue against it (and nearly impossible to offer a better alternative).

.

The Facts:

• 11 million illegal immigrants live in the United States. Contrary to political ads, these are not 11 million men. This number includes millions of mothers, children and grandmothers — many of whom have been living here for more than a generation. Many young adults, brought here as children, don’t even speak their parents’ native tongue. For these young adults, America is the only home they have ever known.

• Although immigrants significantly contribute to our national economy (spending billions of dollars as consumers), they are also a significant economic burden on public services (e.g. schools, hospitals).

• Nearly all illegal immigrants have been enticed to immigrate here by Americans wanting cheap labor. With a wink and a nod, we have let them know that immigration and employment laws will not be enforced. By offering them work — usually doing jobs we would not do ourselves, and at wages far below poverty standards —  we have long extended an invitation to immigrate, work and live here.

• Illegal immigrants live their lives in the shadows of our society, always in mortal fear of deportation — a fear especially profound and damaging for the children of these immigrants.

• The lack of a comprehensive federal immigration policy has left many states overburdened and unable to manage this problem at the state and local levels.

.

The Philosophy:

It is unimaginable, immoral and logistically impossible to think that we are going to identify, arrest and deport 11 million people. Only the most callous and, frankly, un-American of us can imagine rounding up a family of five — a family who may have been living, working and attending school here for ten years— driving them to the Mexican border and simply pushing them off the bus. These are people that fled their country in order to survive. There are no homes waiting for them back in their native countries.

It is equally immoral for us to entice families to immigrate here and then make them live in the shadows as sub-humans. It is not who we are as Americans. We are a country of immigrants.

At the same time, it is equally clear that we must protect our nation both fiscally and socially — which requires very real restrictions on immigration and responsible regulation of immigrants.

Therefore, we need a solution that affords limited protection for these immigrants (allowing them to live productive lives and contribute to our society), while at the same time permiting our country to legally regulate and monitor this group.

.

The Solution:

1. All illegal immigrants must register with the government by a fixed date (at post  offices, DMV…). This is a one-time deal.  If you do not register, you are not protected. No exceptions.

2. Applicants will be given “Temporary Protective Status” and issued a national ID card (with fingerprint and holographic security features).

3. Federal TPS Database is then established — with names, photographs, fingerprints, criminal backgrounds and security data on each immigrant.

4. Applicant will be excluded (and deported) if any significant criminal offense.

5. Within 12 months, ALL employers (from corporations to household maids) must check all employees with this new database. If any employer is found with a non-registered illegal immigrant, a severe fine will be assessed. Employers will be routinely inspected and the law will be aggressively enforced. The immediate effect will be to completely STOP all illegal employment.

6. Since 95+ % of illegal immigration consists of the poor seeking work, the inflow of illegal immigrants will virtually vanish — without the need of costly fences or security checkpoints. If there is simply no chance for illegal work (or free public education for their children), the overwhelming majority will just not come.  We can then focus our limited resources on the real dangers associated with border control: terrorism & drug trafficking.

7. An individual’s status will be checked only when seeking work, public education or if arrested (no raids on public busses…). Registered immigrants are not required to carry their TPS cards.

8. To maintain TPS, must re-register every 3 years and maintain non-criminal status.

9. TPS does not give full protections of regular citizens (no minimum wage, no worker’s compensation or unemployment benefits…).

10.  If we want to provide a possible path to citizenship (and we do not have to), very rigorous requirements can be established (e.g. 10 years of residency, non-criminal status, 5 years of tax returns, civics and English classes, military service, etc…).

.

So that’s it — a real solution to a real problem. Humane, just, practical and effective.

Your grandparents would be very proud.

.

.

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially

driven by how passionately I felt about this country,

that I worked far too hard and things happened

in my life that were not appropriate.”

.

So explains Newt Gingrich to The Christian Broadcasting Network, clarifying for the public exactly why he cheated on his first two wives.

.

Newt’s Brief History:

1.            Marriage—–Cheat—–Divorce

2.            Marriage—–Cheat—–Divorce

3.            Marriage—–Obtain God’s Forgiveness—–Run for President of the                    United States as the Pro-Marriage-Family-Values Candidate.

.

And while we had naively assumed his infidelity was merely the result of immoral, corrupt and dishonest behavior, it turns out that he was just too darn patriotic!

And if you cannot now embrace him as your Pro-Marriage-Family-Values-Kind-of-Guy, he would like you to know that you are a gay, secular fascist, socialist, communist Kenyan, anti-Colonial Nazi.

And now this fierce patriotism is making him run for President. His patriotism apparently is really powerful stuff — powerful enough to allow extreme hubris to trump any sense of decency, humility or personal integrity.

In fact, all this patriotism should make his third wife very, very nervous.

.

.
The Benefit:              State-of-the-Art Medical Care.

The Benficiaries:       All retirees, for life.

Current Status:         Medicare provides outstanding healthcare to our                                          seniors, as it rapidly bankrupts our nation.

Cost:                         1965:      1% of GDP       2010:     10% of GDP

..

THE BENEFIT: “State-of-the Art Medical Care.” What we had considered state-of-the art medical care in 1965 does not even resemble today’s advanced care. In fact, 1960’s medical care more resembles medieval medicine than anything seen today. Such radical medical advancements inevitably bring enormous increases in cost.

1965:                                                     2010:

Check-up with family Doc                      Every Doc a Specialist

Chest X-ray                                           CT Scan, MRI & PET Scan

Gallbladder Surgery                              Cardiac By-Pass & Hip Replacement

Penicillin ($1 per treatment)                  Avastin ($100,000 per year)

.

THE BENEFICIARIES: Those Darn Demographics!  A simple review of the the demographics here points out the “beneficiaries” problem. We are now facing a huge increase in the number of beneficiaries, a marked increase in the number of years each will be receiving the benefit, and a shocking decrease in the number of current workers supporting each beneficiary.

1965:                                                      2010:

16 workers per beneficiary                     3.3 workers per beneficiary

Fewer retirees                                        Baby Boomers retire (huge)

Short benefit (life expect: 70 yr)             More years of benefits (expect: 79 yr)

.

.

“DOC, GIVE IT TO ME STRAIGHT: AM I GONNA MAKE IT?”

Medicare, as we have known it, is clearly on its deathbed and cannot be saved. Our challenge, then, is to create a far leaner and more efficient program that will allow us to care for our citizens without bankrupting the nation.

We will simply have to decide what percentage of our GDP can be reasonably spent on healthcare, and then set that number as a fixed maximum. Period. Working backward from this number, terribly painful decisions will then have to me made, limiting both the benefit offered and the intended beneficiaries.

Limiting “The Beneficiaries“: This will be painful, but is easily implemented. The benefit will simply have to begin at a later age, and partial means-testing will be necessary.

Limiting “The Benefit” This will feel more like amputation without anesthesia. We simply have no choice but to “limit” components of health-care offered (let the chants begin:  “Rationing!”…”Death Panels!“…). While such a change seems contrary to our very nature as Americans, facts are facts and numbers are numbers. We can either offer the world to everyone and destroy our country in the process, or we can redefine what a compassionate country can actually afford to offer its citizens, and simply offer our best..

Medicare, it was nice while it lasted. Rest In Peace.

.

.

Dear Birthers:

There are a host of very defensible reasons why you may not like our President. And I am confident that nearly all fall into the broad category of “reasonable”.

But when  “Obama was born in Kenya”  is your explanation,  I’m a bit concerned.

I’m concerned because maintaining such a claim at this point will clearly place you into at least one of two groups: the Morons or the Bigots** [See Below].

If you are just a moron, then I forgive you. It will still be disturbing to hear your rants, but a moron is a moron and you cannot help yourself. You have been betrayed by your gene pool and I will not make fun of your disability.

If you are a bigot, however… well……… I still forgive you. For a bigot is also a moron, and as I have stated, a moron is just a moron.

In either case, though, I thought I might help you to disguise your disability with a short exercise. I’ve compiled a list of some very reasonable explanations why you might dislike — or even detest — our President. I thought we might say them out loud together to practice for the next time you feel the need to bash him.

Let’s give it a try, shall we?  All together now:

.

         “He’s too liberal!”

         “He’s too inexperienced!”

         “He’s too apologetic!”

         “He’s too professorial!”       (Pssst…that means he acts like a teacher.)

               “...he’s too black!”         (No, no, no. I heard you. Try again…)

               “…he has huge ears!”   (….. I guess, but…)

         “His policies are damaging this country!”    (Much better!)

.

There.  I knew you could do it!

Warm Regards,

S.

[** There is a third group: the Fake Birthers — those opportunists who fully know the truth, but are feeding and manipulating the Birthers like lemmings for their own political gain. They are the worst of the worst, for they are not ignorant (pitiable), but immoral and corrupt and I will not waste my time on them.]

.

.

Paying taxes is a lot like getting a colonoscopy — we know it’s necessary, but we still moan and whine when the due date arrives. Moreover, just as putting off that necessary colonoscopy can lead to disaster, so too are the consequences of delayed fiscal responsibility (there are other, more graphic analogies, but I will leave these to your own creative imaginations…).

So in this spirit of our healthy national colon (yuck!), I will address a few points about taxes, jobs, entitlements and the deficit.

Will The Adults In The Room Please Stand Up?

We all know that Democrats blindly defend entitlement programs as fiercely as Republicans fight taxation. The adults in the room, however, know the only way out of our of our current fiscal disaster is a painful approach to both: increasing revenues (read: “tax increase“) and meaningful entitlement reform (read: “entitlement cuts“). The sooner we all face reality, the sooner we can get down to business.

Getting down to business, however, requires a review of a few questionable cliches:

1.   “We’re already over-taxed!“

2.   “Raising taxes kills jobs!“

3.   “Tax cuts reduce the deficit!“

4.   “Those Republicans want to kill your Medicare!“

.

“We’re Already Over-Taxed!“

Despite the outcry from fiscal conservatives that we are terribly “overtaxed”, current personal income tax levels are actually at near record lows in our modern history (just a cursory review of the top marginal income tax rates since 1960 startles most readers). While one might make a compelling argument that our current tax revenues are poorly utilized by the government or that our federal government should be smaller and more efficient, a prima facie argument that today’s current tax rates are oppressive — rates that are near historic lows — is at least suspect.

.

“Raising Taxes Kills Jobs!“

While renowned economists, Fed Chairmen and career politicians continue to debate this theoretical question, perhaps the rest of us can at least look to recent data to make a common sense evaluation (perhaps as good as any approach…).

While Clinton raised taxes, 22.7 million jobs were created  — a record number (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics) . Interestingly, at the same time a budget surplus was achieved.

Bush then lowered taxes and job growth was stagnant – only 1.1 million jobs created in eight years. At the same time, massive deficits were created.

While I would not dare argue a cause and effect construct between tax increases and job growth, the fact remains:  record job growth has been achieved in an economic environment of tax increases. Not just job growth, record job growth.

.

“Tax Cuts Reduce the Deficit!“

As always, there is no free lunch. We all love paying less in taxes, but we must also live with its long-term effects. Despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, the Bush tax cuts led to a dramatic  increase in our budget deficit. Estimates of how much the Bush tax cuts cost the Treasury in foregone revenue from 2001 to 2010 range from 1.0 trillion to 2.1 trillion (Source: Tax Foundation). 

Moreover, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for an additional 10 years will further increase the deficit by $680 Billion (Source: CBO). Here, the long-term effects of tax cuts are clear — all 680 billion of them. Numbers are numbers.

.

“Those Republicans Want to Kill Your Medicare!“

Democrats want you to know that they are the last safeguard between you and your entitlement programs. They just don’t want you to know that those same entitlement programs are not only bankrupting your country, but that these programs are soon insolvent and wont actually exist (Medicare will be insolvent in just 10 years (Source: CBO, March 2011)). Instead of actually proposing a solution to the problem, Dems are only playing politics with it, for it’s a slam dunk winner for election purposes — even 70% of the fiscally conservative Tea Party members are unwilling to cut Medicare (Source: McClatchy-Marist poll, April, 2011).

While the Republican plan to replace the soon-to-be insolvent Medicare may be wholly insufficient, at least the Republicans have brought an option to the table. If the Dems want to act like grown-ups, they had better do the same.

So where do we stand?

So maybe we are not terribly overtaxed. And perhaps raising taxes might not kill jobs. And perhaps tax cuts would only further increase the deficit. And maybe, just maybe, today’s entitlement programs are simply not sustainable.

So we’re back where we started. Will the adults in the room finally stand up?

Not likely.

In the meantime, you might want to schedule your colonoscopy.

.