Why can't my Senator learn to take a bribe?

I don’t know about anyone else, but I am mad. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) got $300,000,000 for her vote on health care and my Senator, Sherrod Brown (D-OH), gave his away for free. She was happy to get $100,000,000 and then got 3 times what was promised. What is wrong with our Senator that he couldn’t live up to the political tradition of selling his vote like she did?

A bribe is defined as: persuade somebody with enticement (to give somebody money or some other incentive to do something, especially something illegal or dishonest). Technically you can’t call it a bribe because he didn’t actually say ‘hey Mary, here is $300,000,000 if you vote for this’. Instead, our honorable representatives (sarcasm) placed an amendment on page 432 of the Senate Health Care bill that contains the nugget "certain states recovering from a major disaster." In order to qualify for this the state must have been declared a disaster area in the past 7 fiscal years. While Louisiana is not the only state that has had that declaration; notice the wording "certain states". At least we can say the Senate believes in transparency. The bribes are right there in the open for everyone to see. If this had been anyone else but a Senator, there would be criminal investigations.
Common Sherrod, what is wrong with you that you can’t seem to take $300,000,000 of taxpayer money and get it for Ohio?

Where has all the money gone?

I for one am glad to see the stimulus working. I think. I am not sure if I understand how to read the data. But, my government tells me it is working so it must be. My government would never lie to me. Though, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust but verify”. With that in mind, I went to recovery.gov to find out how well the stimulus is working. The first part that confused me was a job saved. How do you measure a job saved? Is it one where the boss comes up and says to the employee, ‘good thing we got some stimulus money or you would be gone.’? If the money dries up, which eventually it must or the job is inherently a government job, does the person then get let go?

Quick question; how many congressional districts are in Arizona? Answer; 8. So how did 30 jobs get saved or created with S761,420 in federal stimulus spending in the 15th district? $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority. The Navajo Housing authority is actually located in the 1st congressional district but what about the other money?

Okay, a minor mistake. We found the 34 million and $761,420 isn’t much. We should expect some minor mistakes; after all we are talking billions of dollars being doled out.

But there are other mistakes:
*** In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist. – That works out to $1.26million for each job. Where do I sign up?

*** In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts. -$271,794/job. I am willing to move for that much.

*** In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars. – Now that is the way to do it. Create jobs without the stimulus dollars. But if they didn't get stimulus money why show jobs created? Does every new job created count as being created because of the stimulus?

The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well:

*** $68.3 million spent and $72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands. -There is no such thing. The entire area is considered a "district at large".

*** $8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands. – $208,436/job. I have been to the U.S. Virgin Islands before and would be willing to go back there. Is this in addition to the other money spent in the 1st district? That would be $148.9 million total for the population of 108,612.

*** $1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district (-over $4.5million for just one job.) and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands. - $246,478/job

*** $47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district. - $163,917/job. Having been to Puerto Rico also, I can say that this is living well.

And the best part is the $18 million mistake to create the site in the first place. Why create a site to show transparency and then have it so full of mistakes? Nothing will be done to correct it and the Whitehouse will continue to falsely claim jobs created or saved with no real proof. And all the while, our money will continue to be wasted.

Hope and change boys, hope and change.

So you want security?

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. – Dwight D. Eisenhower

For some unknown reason, individuals whom I normally consider rational want to give control of the country’s healthcare to a body of individuals who have never run a successful program. Case in point; the H1N1 vaccine. When fears of a swine flu epidemic emerged last spring, the federal government stepped in to ensure the H1N1 vaccine was available for every American—promising 120 million doses by mid-October. But with government managing the effort the vaccine makers missed their deadlines. So now the government is allocating the early doses to those most in need, while millions go without. We’re seeing vaccine shortages, rationing, waiting lines and people dying for lack of medicine. And who is taking responsibility? No one! The swine flu debacle is only a preview of what we can all expect when the government guarantees access to affordable health care.

Another good example is Medicare. Medicare does get near universal coverage for seniors. But it costs taxpayers a lot of money, and much, much more will be needed in the future. The Medicare trustees’ new annual report says that over time Medicare will need an additional $90 trillion more than it’s taking in. I’ve heard politicians say they know how to get control of rising health care costs. But they’ve been running Medicare for 45 years, and it’s about the only thing going broke even faster than General Motors.

Oops, he did it again?

When President Obama visited the Queen of England, who is about a foot shorter than the President, he didn’t bother to bow, er…. Bend down to shake her hand; he did give her a two handed handshake.



When President Barack Obama visited Saudi Arabia he bowed to the Saudi King and the Whitehouse played it off that he didn’t bow, he merely bent over to give a two handed shake to the king who was shorter than Mr. Obama. "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. President Obama is 6’ 1 ½” tall. Based on a video of the bow, er…. Handshakes, King Abdullah is about 6” shorter than the President. Now it appears to me that he bends over at the waist (as you would do when you bow) while shaking hands one handed, then stands up and shakes the Kings hand with both. Maybe I am wrong because the camera angle isn’t the best. Below are pictures. But you decide for yourself. I circled his left hand (which is supposedly also shaking the Kings at this point)





Usually it is out of respect to royalty that you nod your head, though Bill Clinton was taken to task for that in 1994 and again the Whitehouse denied it was a bow. So I question; did the President of the United States bow to the King of a foreign country and if he did what is the significance?

I believe that yes, he did bow, you decide for yourself:



So now the question is what is the significance? But the traditional Miss Manners book of etiquette advises: Americans do not bow to foreign monarchs because that act signified the monarch's power over his subjects. Webster's Dictionary has a couple of definitions of the word bow(ing). (1) "to incline the head or body in salutation or assent or to acknowledge applause" (2)"to bend the head, body, or knee in reverence, submission, or shame" If he did in fact bow it was the first time a President of the United states has bowed to a foreign power; or, in other words, shown submission and shown subservience of the United States to a foreign power.

So what? Well, seems he did it again!!! And this time, it is clear that he is not giving a two handed handshake.



Are these people really that stupid? After all the fuss over him bowing to the Saudi King, you would think someone in the administration would give him a clue about how to properly greet the Emperor of Japan and not be seen as subjugating himself.

Just so you know the proper way for heads of state to meet, here is a video that shows how 46 other heads of state greeted the Emperor of Japan.



Please tell Mr. Obama he is President of the United States. He is the most powerful person in the world and as President (our representative to the world) HE DOES NOT BOW TO ANYONE!!! If he is wanting to make the United States “respected again”, why is he doing stupid things?

I am sure that somehow this has got to be Bush’s fault!

Be Careful what you wish for

It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires — usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.

So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.

This has gone on for a long time and it was instituted to prevent someone from being fired for their political affiliations. Well, this is coming to an end! In a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); (http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalId=2588) the Director John Berry, sent out a memo dated 11/05/2009 stating:

Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decision making authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.

In no case may an agency make an appointment of the type described below without written authorization from OPM:

A. The appointment of a current political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee or a former political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.

B. The appointment of a current Non-career SES Executive Branch employee or a former Non-career SES Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.

So what does this mean? It seems that this is an attempt on the part of the Obama administration to purge the Civil Service roles of the opposition. If you worked for Bush, say bye-bye. Stated another way, “but for” the applicant having served as a political appointee within the past five years, all agencies would not be required to seek review from OPM for all agency positions. Effectively, the ONLY reason EVERY agency will now be REQUIRED to consult OPM is to “ask permission” to hire a person based on their political affiliation. In other words, how many “Republican” registered voters are going to suddenly find problems when they go to vote next year? All because of some error or oversight of course.

Just to give some perspective: The Democrats had a seizure when the Bush administration fired the U.S Attorneys –who serve at the pleasure of the President – and he can fire them whenever he wants. In this case, civil service employees – who do NOT serve at the pleasure of the President – can be fired because they have an R behind their names in the voter polls.

So what happens in 2013? If Obama cannot rally the minority vote like he did for his “historic” election, what will the Democrats say if the next administration purges the roles of Democrats?

Will the Demorats pull the Kennedy move prior to leaving office? In case you forgot; When Mitt Romney (R) was Governor 2004, the Massachusetts House voted to strip the Governor of the power to appoint a successor if Kerry won. Then in 2009, the House changed the law again to give Gov. Deval Patrick (D) the power to appoint a temporary successor to the late Sen. Kennedy until a special election is held next year.

Do the actions of the Democrats seem akin to those of third world dictators?

The real cost of minimum wage

Everyone is paying attention to the health care debate and no one is paying attention to the unemployment rate. Not the unemployment rate of 10.2%; the unemployment rate of 25.9%. Unemployment has risen to 25.9% in September for teens between 16 and 19 years old; the highest rate recorded since 1948. How can this be?

The unemployment rate for the age group was 16.9% in December 2007 when the recession began. Recessions amplify disadvantages such as lack of work experience. But, where do you get work experience and develop a work ethic if you can’t find a job in the first place? Studies have shown that being shut out of the labor market early in one’s career can lead to persistent, negative effects on a person’s ability to find a job and earn competitive wages for up to a decade or more. A study by researchers at Stanford found that those who do not work as teenagers have lower long-term wages and employability even after 10 years. A high-wage society can only come by making workers more productive, and by destroying starter jobs the minimum wage may reduce long-term earnings.
According to Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics:
• Seasonally adjusted teenage unemployment hit 25.9%. That is the highest rate in the nearly 62 years BLS has been reporting this number. The previous record was last month's 25.5%. The record before that was 24.1% in November and December of 1982.



• Unemployment among black teens not enrolled in school is over 50%.
• The rate among 20-24 year-olds is also alarmingly high at 15.1%.

With the economy trillions of dollars in the hole, $0.70 sounds like nothing. The first federal minimum-wage law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938, with a 25-cent-per-hour wage floor and a 44-hour workweek ceiling for most employees. (It also banned child labor.) The federal minimum wage has risen from $5.15 to $7.25 since 2007; the latest raise on July 24, 2009. In total, the extra $2.10 translates to only $4,400 per year for a full-time minimum-wage worker, nosing his/her family of four just above the poverty line.

Washington will deny the reality, and the media won't make the connection, but one reason for these job losses is the rising minimum wage. People that know me, know that I predicted the rise in the minimum wage would result in the loss of teen jobs and sure enough, there are 691,000 fewer teens working now that in July 2007. Set against a backdrop of retired workers who were forced to rejoin the workforce to pay bills parents who’ve been laid off and are trying to care for children, and adults who have seen their retirement funds evaporate (maybe that kind older lady taking your coffee order at McDonalds isn’t working there because she wants to stay busy), young people often find it hard to get any sympathy. Particularly when it seems like the only thing they’re losing is pocket money.

Maybe it can be declared a “crises” and Congress can create a teenage wage of $4 or $5 an hour to help put hundreds of thousands of teens back to work. Without any change, we can expect teen unemployment to remain very high for a long time and place a long-term burden on our future work force.

Things are not all that bad though; the unemployment rate for 20 to 24-year-olds dropped to a still-high 14.9% in September. But, it’s the second month the group’s unemployment rate decreased.

Why not Universal thinking?

Let’s have universal healthcare. While we are at it, let’s have universal housing, universal food, universal employment, and universal clothing. Why just stop at healthcare? What about universal automobiles or universal automobile insurance?

A minority (42% as of November 2, 2009) of the American people support universal health care. The majority (54%) oppose it as it is currently written. The Census Bureau estimates that the number of uninsured amounts to 45.7 million people. But the agency might be over counting by millions due to faulty assumptions. Another problem: That 45.7 million includes undocumented immigrants, even though they aren't likely to be covered under new law.

About 3.5 million U. S. residents (about 1% of the population), including 1.35 million children, have been homeless for a significant period of time. Over 37,000 homeless individuals (including 16,000 children) stay in shelters in New York every night. This information was gathered by the Urban Institute, but actual numbers might be higher. 3.5 million!

Hunger in America is a huge problem. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that in 2007:

• 36.2 million people lived in households considered to be food insecure.
• Of these 36.2 million, 23.8 million are adults (10.6 percent of all adults) and 12.4 million are children (16.9 percent of all children).
• The number of people in the worst-off households increased to 11.9 from 10.8 in 2005. This increase in the number of people in the worst-off category is consistent with other studies and the Census Bureau poverty data, which show worsening conditions for the poorest Americans.
• Black (22.2 percent) and Hispanic (20.1 percent) households experienced food insecurity at far higher rates than the national average.
• The ten states with the highest food insecurity rates in 2007 were Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri.

In October 2009, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed over the month at 5.6 million. In October, 35.6 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in October at 9.3 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

Many people do not have the proper clothing to keep them from the effects of exposure. Yes, this affects the homeless and they are covered above, but many are children. Though I could not find official numbers, there were stories of children in schools that had shoes that didn’t fit and when they went to clothing banks and took off their shoes, they usually had no socks either.

As the above examples show, there is a need for a lot of things. Why concentrate on health care? Maslow’s hierarchy of needs states that the most basic needs are physiological: oxygen, food, water, sex, sleep and a relatively constant body temperature. It is after these needs are met that we search out safety needs: security of body, of employment, of resources, of morality, of the family, of health and of property.

So again, why health care? This isn’t even one of the most basic needs. If we are going to provide universal health care, how long till we provide universal housing, universal food, universal employment, and universal clothing? What will be next; universal thinking?