Congressional Seating 

       

I am fed up with partisan politics that only benefit the ruling political elite.  Both parties should be working for the good of the country and not for personal gain.  The Republicans and Democrats should not be acting like the Hatfields and McCoys.  This attitude of drawing a line in the sand is ridiculous.   

We see this division in the seating in congress.  The Democrats are on one side and the Republicans on the other side.  This physical division only makes the division worse. 

When people have a dinner party, the table seating is normally man, woman, man woman, etc.  This seating is meant to improve the conversation and overall interaction. 

The seating in both branches of Congress ought to use the same principle.  The seating should be Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, etc.  Maybe if they had to sit next to each other, they might just talk to each other, and if they have to talk to each other, maybe they will work in the best interests of the country and not just for their party. 

Many family gatherings also have a kid’s table for kids that don’t fit at the adult table.  Some of our politicians should probably be restricted to the kid’s table until they can act like adults.

I know making Democrats and Republicans sit by each other is a novel idea, and probably too radical, but worth thinking about.  It might even be good for the country.

Government’s Addiction To Spending

       

        Our federal government’s spending has doubled in the last eleven years.  We can’t put all the blame on one political party, since both Democrats and Republicans have held the Presidency and majorities in the House and Senate during that time period. 

        We are fast approaching a fiscal cliff and politicians still are not dealing with the problem.   At some point we will have to deal with the problem or our country will collapse.  Will that lead to a total government takeover and a socialist country?  I know some people want to see that happen, but I hope most people want to keep our freedom.

This spending addiction seems to have filtered down to the smallest levels of our government.  I live in a small township in Wisconsin.  This township has a population of fewer than 2,000 people.  

The township wanted to increase the tax levy by an amount greater than allowed under Wisconsin statute without putting it to a vote of the people in the township.  The argument was that it was better to increase taxes than to borrow the money and go in debt.  One statement was that paying interest on loans was not a good use of taxpayer money.

This sounds like the old tax and spend approach vs. the borrow and spend approach.  What happened to QUIT SPENDING?    When the issue was presented before the vote, cutting spending was never presented as an option.  Personally, I think cutting spending was an option. 

People attending the meeting were never told what the additional cost of the levy increase meant in tax dollars for the individual taxpayer.  The township tax increase was hidden by combining it with the school tax levy.  Since the school tax levy was going down due to a school consolidation and a fiscally responsible Governor, the total tax showed a decrease. 

I had a good idea what the actual tax increase was, but I am sorry to say I did not ask that specific question at the meeting.  I don’t know if it would have made any difference in the vote to approve the increased tax levy. 

I do know one thing.  When a tax is implemented or increased, it seldom goes away or is decreased.  This is true with this levy increase too.  The resolution even states, “This increase shall be ongoing.”

I am very concerned with all levels of government’s lack of fiscal responsibility, but my primary concern is the growth of our federal government.  I believe our political elite are acting in their personal best interests and not the best interests of the country.  If we don’t reverse the growth of the federal government, I feel sorry for our children and grandchildren. 

Campaign spending 2012

       

        Estimates put campaign spending for the 2012 Presidential election at around two billion dollars.  That seems like a lot of money to an old Iowa farm boy like me.

        Donations to a candidate’s campaign are limited to a maximum of $2,500, but donations to the Super PACS are sometimes as large as ten million dollars.  These Super PACS are unregulated, and the candidates they support supposedly have no control over how these funds are spent.  If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Do you think these large donors might get any special consideration by the officials they help to elect?  I’m probably just being paranoid.

It gets worse.  Lets look at all the campaigns including the U.S. House and Senate, state, city, county, and local political races.  We certainly don’t want to ignore special elections like the Wisconsin Governor Walker recall election.  We now have a total of around six billion dollars. 

Seems like a lot of money to me.  I admit it produced business for some ad agencies, TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, and printing companies, but do you think there is any better way we could have spent that money? 

I have a still greater problem with all this money spent on campaign ads that are inaccurate, misleading, or outright lies.  Many people just get sick of the media blitz if they live in a battle ground state.  And, worst of all some people actually believe the lies.

The destruction from Sandy is in the news.  FEMA is one of the federal government agencies helping these people.  Six billion is half of FEMA’s entire budget. 

As with many things involving our federal government, campaign spending has gotten out of control.  The primary concern of many politicians is getting elected and they ignore the people they should be representing. 

The very rich, large corporations, and special interest groups like unions and welfare seem to be well represented.  Unfortunately, neither party seems to be concerned with the average working American.

Maybe it is time for some serious and effective campaign reform.  We should also give serious consideration to repealing the 17^th Amendment to Constitution so U.S. Senators act in the best interest of the state they are supposed to be representing and not the Super PACS that helped elect them. 

No Change

       

        There was a large turnout for yesterday’s election and the result was a vote for no change.  I had sincerely hoped the actions of our federal government over the last decades would be enough to prompt some real change.  I am sad to say I was wrong. 

The President was reelected.  The Republicans still control the House and the Democrats still control the Senate.  The end result is no change.  We can expect four more years like the last two years.  The only winners were the political elite. 

        We will continue to see an ineffective Congress and a President using executive orders to create legislation.  We will see more government regulations that will hurt business and the economic recovery.   We will not achieve energy independence and we will see higher costs for energy.

We may not see any federal budgets, just like the last few years.  We will continue to see an increase in the size of the federal government and government spending.  We will probably see the debt rise to twenty trillion dollars.  The US credit rating has dropped twice and will probably drop again.

I predict a slow recovery for the economy and a slow change in unemployment, but we will recover in spite of the federal government, because of the initiative and tenacity of the American entrepreneur. 

I hope and pray that eventually the voting public will recognize that we must change the direction of our federal government.  God bless America.

       

       

Expand or Reform Federal Government

       

        We have a national election in one week.  I am 68 years old and in my opinion this may be the most important election in my lifetime.  This election is about more than just Democrats and Republicans.  Here are some things to think about.

·       Do we want to continue to expand the federal government, increase government spending, increase government debt, and eventually taxes?

·       Do we want to return control to the states and the people as stated in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment?

·       Do we want to restore the balance of power our Founding Fathers intended with the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government?

There are a lot of other issues, but these are the big ones in my opinion.  If we don’t address these issues, we may not have input on other issues in the future.  Give a lot of thought to your choices and vote.

Too Small To Succeed

       

        We hear a lot about “Too Big To Fail” with the federal government bailing out big banks and companies like General Motors.  I think the term used in the Dodd-Frank Act for large banks is “Systemically Significant”. 

I don’t think the federal government should pick winners or losers, big or small.  Let me tell you a story about a small business. 

I heard this story from a mutual friend that is a very reliable source.  We will call the owner of the business John Doe.  John Doe is an upstanding citizen that was seriously wounded in the Vietnam War.

John built his own business, which we will call the widget business.  Nationally, there were about 400 companies in the widget business.  The federal government recently passed significant legislation regulating the widget business.  These new regulations came from some appointed federal bureaucrat and/or an executive order.  None of these new regulations had the approval of congress. 

The cost for John’s widget business to comply with the new federal regulations was so significant that John considered shutting down his business.  John decided to spend the money to comply with the new regulations.  Maybe he is just a good American that did not want to put all his employees out of work. 

When John’s widget business had it’s final inspection for the new regulations, the federal inspector made an interesting comment.  He said, “Congratulations, we did not think you would be one of the survivors.”  John asked him what he meant.  The response was that the intent of the new regulations was to put 320 of the 400 widget companies out of business, because it is a lot easier for the federal government to control and regulate 80 companies in widget business than 400.

When I heard this, I was immediately mad.  I said John should have gone to the press.  My friend reminded me that if John had done that, he probably would have federal inspectors at his door on Monday morning and he would be out of business. 

This is a sad, but true story.  You now see why I referred to the owner as John Doe and called his business the widget business.

This is not an isolated incident in this country.  Some people are so naive that they don’t think this type of thing can happen in this country. 

Keep in mind this is happening when all political candidates are saying they are concerned with building the economy, reducing unemployment, and helping the middle class.  Actions do speak louder than words.

Historically, when government adds regulations or price controls, small business is hurt.  When small business is hurt, prices increase, unemployment increases, and the economy suffers.  This is not rocket science.  Check out history. 

These continually expanding federal government regulations may not have affected you personally except for higher prices, but they will at some point in time if we don’t make changes.  We better reduce the size and control of the federal government before it is too late.

Executive Orders

        I have mentioned my concern with executive orders several times in the past.  The head of a government issues an executive order.  This could be a mayor, governor, or our President.   I want to examine executive orders by our Presidents. 

        When our President issues an executive order it has the full force of law.  Congress has the responsibility of creating our laws and an executive order is creating legislation without the approval of Congress.  I question if this is even legal under our constitution.  The Constitution does not specifically give the President the authority to issue executive orders, but this has been circumvented with a vague definition of “Executive Power” which is granted in the Constitution.

        The President’s responsibility is to act as our Commander and Chief and enforce our laws and not make laws.  It is true that some legislation by the Congress specifically grants the President some degree of discretionary legislative power with regard to that specific legislation.  

        Has the use of executive orders gotten out of control?  Here are some facts.  You decide.

Executive orders issued by President:

        FDR                         11 in 16 years

        Truman                      5 in 7 years

        Eisenhower                2 in 8 years

        JFK                           4 in 3 years

        LBJ                           4 in 5 years

        Nixon                        1 in 6 years

        Ford                         3 in 2 years

        Carter                       3 in 4 years

        Reagan                    5 in 8 years

        Bush - 41                 3 in 4 years

        Clinton                   15 in 8 years

        Bush - 43               62 in 8 years

        Obama                 923 in 3 ½ years

        This trend is scary.  We all should be very concerned with this trend.  I see why some people say the Congress is being made irrelevant. 

I am not in favor of the President ever having the power of issuing executive orders unless specifically granted by Congress, and I am defiantly concerned with the abusive use of executive orders starting with President Clinton and Bush 43.  Our founding fathers formed a republic with three branches of government.  The legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch where designed to be a check and balance to insure the freedom of the people.  Our founding fathers where pretty smart. 

If we don’t want of lose our individual freedoms, we must stop or control executive orders.  I fear many people are not even aware of this potential danger to our way of life.