The Candidates After the January Debate

Because of his showing in Iowa on January 3, 2012, I learned that Santorum’s grandfather was a coal miner and his parents worked at the Veteran’s Administration in West Virginia; they moved to Pennsylvania when he was 7 years old; he was a 32 year old lawyer when he was elected to the US House in 1990 and he served 2 terms; he has 7 children (the youngest has a disability and he said they don’t take her out in crowds); his campaign motto is ‘faith, family & freedom’; he quickly raised $3 million and he compared same sex marriage with polygamy.

On January 8, we heard that a Las Vegas, Nevada billionaire with ties to Newt Gingrich donated $5 million to an independent group supporting Gingrich’s run for the White House (on January 24, the casino owner’s wife also donated $5 million). In the debate on this date the candidates feeling they had faltered, tried to correct their responses on the issues. They continue to bring up Reaganomics and it was pointed out that in 1982 (half way through his term) unemployment had risen to 10.4%, the highest level in US history. It was also pointed out that Romney served only one term as the Massachusetts Governor and did not run for a second term; he said he went there to make a difference and he did. Santorum wanted to know why he really didn’t run for a second term and Gingrich said it was because he had a very poor running record so he decided not to.

On January 10 we found out that Huntsman didn’t quality for Arizona primary and a poll shows that Republicans believe Romney has a 55% chance of beating Obama. On this same date, Vice President (VP) Biden when talking to New Hampshire (NH) Democrats said Romney “Thinks it’s more important for the stockholders and the shareholders and the investors and the venture capital guys to do well than for those employees to be part of the bargain.” Romney’s response was that the VP and the President oversaw General Motors and Chrysler and what did they do – they came in and closed factories, they closed dealerships and laid people off, they did it to try to save the business”. Romney again said he’s proud of his record, 10s of thousands of jobs were created; the President lost almost 2 million jobs in his tenure and he did concede that the auto industry is doing better (GM and Chrysler both reported strong sales for November, 2011 and on December 15 we heard that more cars passed safety tests; mainly because the roofs were strengthened; Toyota took 15 awards and GM 14). I have a problem with Romney’s statement that the VP and President decided how to rebuild the auto industry; they were given stimulus money by Congress and the business decisions were left to the companies. The result of GM’s decisions was made known on January 19 – GM is again the #1 automaker in the world; making more than $7 billion in 2011; after filing bankruptcy in 2009 they’ve have paid back almost half of the money received with the stimulus package; they pared down their product line and made the vehicles better; they topped Toyota for first time since 2008. I know we can’t forget the effect of the Tsunami but I think they deserve some praise.   

On January 11 we learned that Romney got 39% of the NH primary votes, Paul 23% and Huntsman 17%. And, Romney supporters are spending $3.6 million on Florida ads. On January 12, former UN Ambassador, John Bolton, endorses Mitt Romney. And we learned that Romney raised $24 million in the last quarter and has $19 left. It’s said the President has raised $68 million and would need more and on January 13 we hear that combined with the Democratic National Committee he has $240 million.

On January 12 we hear that Mormons are 2% of the US adult population and 46% of them feel they’re discriminated against. They say they follow Christ and are Christians; their doors are open, closed portions are for special ceremonies like weddings. This foolish argument among Christians irritates me so I looked up religions on the internet. Site after site classified Mormons, the Amish and Jehovah Witnesses as Christians as they are off shoots just as Protestants and Episcopalians are. On January 15, the social conservative leaders backed Santorum and Huntsman pulled out of the race and backs Romney. On January 16, I couldn’t believe that Perry defended the Marines accused of urinating on dead Taliban. I was happy Perry dropped out of the race on January 19; he’s proof that you don’t have to be intelligent to be rich or run for office and now Texas can stop wasting its taxpayer dollars on his campaign. 

January 2012 Debate Round Up

The January 7, 2012 debate ended with each candidate giving what they considered their great vision for America. Paul said to restore our freedoms, liberties and Constitution; he said we’ve been in a financial bubble for the last 40 years and it broke; the bankers and Wall Street have been bailed out, we need to liquate debt to have growth and it’ll only end when we understand the business cycle. My response – I agree that we have to get to a balanced budget but I don’t believe that it’s all about business.

Perry said there is a vision for America; the people have lost confidence in the government and Wall Street; people want less government, less taxation, less regulation and less litigation. He went on to say we’re sitting on 300 years of energy in this country and we need to let our federal lands and waters to be opened up so that we’re not held hostage and if you pass the right to work law in New Hampshire it’ll become a magnet for jobs. My response – I’m not sure he has a handle on what the American people want and maybe he didn’t hear on January 3 that oil and gas drilling was suspected of causing minor earthquakes in Ohio. And, perhaps since he’s an oil man that won’t be around in 300 years he’s not concerned with pollution or what the next generations are suppose to do if there is no Apocalypse and they’re around to suffer the consequences of our decisions.  

Huntsman said if we can fix our taxes and move toward a friendlier regulatory environment we can get back in the game. My response – I believe this to be true.

Romney said the question is what is the soul of America going to be – we have a President that has put us on a road to decline – militarily, internationally, domestically, we’re looking more like Europe and that’s not working; return America to the first words that were written down in the Declaration of Independence – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as people pursue education, work hard, take risks and build enterprises of all kinds they make us better; we have a President who doesn’t understand that in his bones. My Response – I don’t agree with his assessment of the President. To me the key in what he said is – work hard. An investor may take risks but they do not know the toils of the blue collar worker. I don’t care about his or anyone else’s investments as long as they’re legal and fairly taxed like the income of ordinary people. 

Gingrich’s plan is zero tax on capital gains, 12.5% corporate tax, 100% expensing (write off) for new equipment and abolish the death tax. He went on say that the Wall Street Journal said Romney’s plan was more like Obama’s. My response – You’ve already heard my opinion about taxes. I’m okay with allowing the option for 100% expensing and abolishing the death tax with something like a $500,000 limit until our tax system is fair and assures the rich have paid their dues – when this occurs I’m okay with abolishing it completely.

Santorum agrees with Gingrich and said America doesn’t have classes, we don’t allow for titles – maybe call them middle income people - but he doesn’t want to buy into the Obama class warfare argument; he wasn’t for a health care mandate or a Wall Street bailout, he’s about cap and trade and blue collar workers. I have to take a minute here. I recorded this debate and went over it to make sure I didn’t give bad information. Earlier I wrote that he worked to defeat cap and trade. So I either made a mistake or he contradicted himself. I believe he supports blue collar workers because he said he wanted no tax on manufacturers and processors and doesn’t see this as a type of bailout. And I don’t care what you call the 3 groups of Americans – lower, middle, upper income, the problem is the same, there are large gaps between the groups that need to be addressed. Although I wish that businesses would give to their employees (wages and health benefits to survive) instead of themselves and their stockholders (yes, even his manufacturers and processors can be a part of Wall Street) it isn’t what is happening.   

Romney came back with his plan is not just about taxes, we have to open up markets for our goods, in the last 3 years China and Europe opened up 44 trade agreements, this President has opened up none. Not true. On October 13, 2011 it was reported that Congress passed free trade deals with South Korea, Columbia and Panama. On November 12^th, the President held an economic summit in Hawaii with Asia-Pacific leaders and it was reported that Canada and Mexico are interested in joining the new Pacific Free Trade Agreement that was initiated. Romney said Huntsman was implementing Obama policy in China and they’re stealing our patents, designs, know how, brand names, hacking into corporate and government computers and manipulating their currency to get American jobs. He also said we have to hold China to the free and fair trading rules. Huntsman said you can’t slap a huge tariff on China and not expect repercussions; trade deals with them are like they are with any other country; what Romney is calling for would lead to a trade war, it makes for easy talk and applause but doesn’t work in reality; it would hurt small business and exporters. No one disagrees that China needs to be held accountable for their actions but when I looked around the internet I discovered that for example the solar industry exports well over a billion dollars of products (inverters and more) to China each year and somehow they undersell the panels that they make and sell to the US (this makes me think our labor costs are high) and experts are saying a huge tariff on them could start an international trade war with China so Huntsman is right. 

January 2012 - Foreign Policy

In the January 7, 2012 New Hampshire debate of course everyone wanted to bring our troops home as soon as possible. Romney said he would get guidance from the commanders on the ground and others before pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Huntsman said in 1967 we got bad advice from the ground commanders in Vietnam; he sees civil war coming in Afghanistan and thinks we should accept what we’ve gotten there and get out by 2013. Gingrich thinks Afghanistan is a tiny piece of a gigantic mess. He talked about Pakistan, Iran, the Muslim brotherhood winning elections in Egypt and we don’t know who’s in charge in Libya. Gingrich said we need a new strategy comparable to our strategy to fight the cold war; we aren’t going to solve the problems/civil unrest in South Asia with a military solution, Iraq started deteriorating 24 hours after our troops left. Santorum said he wouldn’t send troops back to Iraq now but the problem is the President has made the wrong moves and shown the people of that region that we are the weak horse and the President did that by pulling our troops out of Iraq. Santorum told Huntsman that is what happens if we pull our troops out of Afghanistan; we need to wait until the security of our country is ensured; the American people need to know the dangers of the radical Islamic. Perry said we should’ve already negotiated with the Iraqi to send troops back; Iran already has a foothold and everything we’ve done would be for nothing. Gingrich doesn’t agree with sending troops back as yet; if we’re worried about the Iranians than we need a plan to eliminate its leadership and Iraq will be fine; we need an energy plan so we don’t bow down to a Saudi King (for oil) and then put pressure on the Saudis to stop this. Romney didn’t answer what the trigger would be to send troops back; he thought that every few months the President should’ve explained our interest and our measurement of success to the American people (I don’t think any President has ever done this). Paul said we need a declaration of war before going into another country, he brought up ping pong got us to talk to the Chinese, he said the saving of the Iranian fishermen is what we should deal with - sanctions always lead up to war, they have a lot of blowback, eastern Europe will be affected without oil and it pushes the Iranians into the hands of the Chinese. Santorum told Paul that if we had his policy there wouldn’t have been a fleet to pick up the Iranians; he also said the President didn’t support the Iranian people during a revolution when thousands were killed in the street and he supported Iran’s elections. Santorum also said when he was in the Senate he pushed to give Iranian revolutionist resources because the Iranian people love America.

I couldn’t remember hearing of a revolution in Iran so I checked everything I had that related to them. I found in November CIA operations in Lebanon were severely damaged after Hezbollah (a militant group with ties to Iran) identified and captured at least a dozen US spies in Lebanon and Iran and the CIA admitted they made mistakes and is flying blind in Lebanon. Late November 2011 the US, Britain and Canada announced new financial sanctions against Iran due to growing concerns for over an Iranian nuclear program. On November 29 Iranian students stormed the British Embassy in Tehran; angry over British support of the sanctions. In December an unarmed US stealth reconnaissance drone crashed in western Afghanistan on the Iranian border; its skin and advanced sensors, cameras and listening (intelligence) could put the US at risk and on December 8 the US asked for it back. Radioactive sodium was found in a Russian suitcase headed for Iran (on January 11 Russia expressed concern with Iran’s uranium enrichment). In January Iran said it had produced its own nuclear fuel rod; they made several threats to close the Strait of Hormuz; test fired a long-range missile in the Strait and said they captured an American spy. On January 9 we find out the spy is a 28 year old ex-Marine born in Arizona who was visiting his grandmother; he’d been held since August, is sentenced to death and has 20 days to appeal. The kicker here is that the Iranians make this announcement after the American destroyer, USS Kidd, spotted Somali pirates holding a fishing boat hostage and rescued 13 Iranians who had been held for nearly 2 months; their Foreign Minister said he welcomed the rescue as a humanitarian gesture but does not release our guy even though we say the accusation is false. We also heard that diplomats confirmed Iran has been enriching uranium in a bunker style facility which can easily change the uranium for use in nuclear weapons; a second facility was found and folks said it would take Iran 1–3 years to build a weapon. On January 10 the US Coast Guard rescued 6 Iranians from a sinking boat. On January 11 a young Iranian nuclear scientist (Deputy Director of the Natanz Nuclear Enrichment Facility) is killed in broad daylight in Tehran (the 4^th nuclear scientist to die in the last 2 years); Iran blames the US and Israel (on the 14^th they also blame Britain); Israel’s Minister of Defense said there are countries that impose economic sanctions and countries that act in other ways. On January 12 on the internet I found that the last Iranian uprising was in 1979, an Iranian court of revolution in August sentenced to death the terrorist who assassinated Ali Mohammadi in 2010 and Iran’s President had gone to Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua to gain support against the US. I have no idea what Romney (see discussion on the commander-in-chief a couple of blogs ago) or Santorum (in this blog) got the idea that there was a recent revolution and I don’t think Paul’s suggested talks without sanctions is going to get us anywhere with Iran. 

January 2012 - Moral Issues

In the January 7, 2012 debate Ron Paul was asked to address the newsletters that went out in the 80s or 90s that were racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Gay (these came out when Gingrich attacked him on December 24, 2011) – Paul said he doesn’t feel a focus should be on something done over 20 years ago that he did not write; he said one of his heroes is Martin Luther King because he practiced peaceful resistance and disobedience as did Rosa Parks. It’s too bad that Paul didn’t point out that he hadn’t signed the Family Leader Marriage Vow document or the National Organization for Marriage pledge (see December 18 blog) as all the others had.

Romney was asked about states providing contraceptives, after saying a question was asked that related to something no one intended to do, it was pointed out that Romney went to Harvard Law School and the Supreme Court ruled in 1965 in Griswold v Connecticut that they couldn’t, so we got back on track. By the way, Griswold v. Connecticut was considered a landmark case; it involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. With a vote of 7–2 the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy" (as privacy is protected by the Constitution). Romney said then that’s the law of the land and if we don’t like it we have the amendment process; in his view we should have an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman; he believes that the decision along with Roe v Wade (1973) was decided incorrectly, both were based on privacy; he did say leave contraception alone it’s working fine. Paul jumped in and said the 4^th amendment does address privacy and that’s why he feels the Patriot Act is wrong and as far as contraceptives go he said the Interstate Commerce Clause covers it. Santorum said the Court created a new conundrum of rights with the decisions and thinks the decisions should be overturned; doesn’t think the Patriot Act violates the 4^th Amendment.

The debate went to Gay marriage and to Gingrich – he said we need to correct the situations that are prohibited without changing the sanctum of marriage. Huntsman said he’s in favor of civil unions with the rights of marriage and he too thinks the sanctum of marriage should be protected. Santorum said adoption by Gays is a state issue and he too wants to protect marriage and it should be federally mandated. When asked about the 1800 Gay couples already married Santorum shrugged his shoulders and said they wouldn’t be married. Romney weighed in saying they can have long term relationships without the approval of the state, or domestic partnership or contractual relationships can be addressed state by state, the nation will presumably be better off if children are raised where there is a male and a female and there’s many cases where that’s not possible (divorce, single parent) but he doesn’t think we should encourage situations other than the ideal setting of a man and a woman. Gingrich then brought up the reverse situation asking - should a Catholic adoption agency be required to close its doors because they won’t accept a Gay couple (he said Massachusetts has done this), should the DC Catholic church quit giving charitable services because it won’t give in to secular bigotry, bigotry goes both ways and there’s a lot more Christian bias and none of it gets covered by the news media. Perry said the war on religion would stop with his administration.

The issue of foreign policy came up next and is too long to address in this blog. 

January 2012 - Military Discussion

To address another of Paul’s comments about Santorum voting against the right to work. I found that under provisions of the federal Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, it can be prohibited to have agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring, which would require the workplace to be a closed shop. Right-to-work laws make a shop open, not restricted to union members and they are enforced in twenty-two US states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming), DC, the territory of Guam and federal employees.

The debate went on to Commander in Chief and national security. Huntsman repeated that he brought his state to #1, Massachusetts (Romney’s state) was #47, and we have a serious trust deficit in this nation, everybody knows that Congress needs term limits and we need to close the revolving door that has corrupted Washington. Huntsman said he can best understand the complex national security issues that we face going forward and the most complex is China (he was the Ambassador). Romney said Huntsman can do better than Obama as he had no experience in leadership, business, or running a city or state and has had to learn on the job and has made one mistake after the other when it relates to foreign policy with the most serious being Iran - they’ve pursued their ambitions for nuclear weapons without having crippling sanctions. Romney also said the President was silent when over a million voices took to the streets in Iran and he failed to put together a plan to shut down their nuclear efforts, we have a President who has shrunk the military, for the first time since FDR we are no longer going to have the ability to fight 2 wars at a time. It was pointed out that only Paul and Perry have served in the military; there are 25 million veterans in this country with only 3 million currently serving. Perry said having been in the military he thought it brought knowledge of what’s required of those serving on the front lines; Obama’s giving up a trillion dollars in defense is jeopardizing our freedoms; he’s allowing a reduction in the military budget so he can spend money in other places.

Although I agree with Huntsman regarding the corruption in Washington, I’ll address it later. I’ll also address the Iran situation later. Right now I’m just going to talk about the defense budget. Remember back, to August 2011 when the budget bill was signed with 10 hours and 10 minutes remaining to a meltdown. With the bill, legislators raised the debt ceiling $2.4 trillion, cut up to $1.2 trillion over a 10 year period (includes defense and health care), and created a 12 person Super Committee that was to recommend an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts in cuts by November 23 and if the Committee was not successful it would trigger cuts in the Pentagon and domestic programs. On November 21, the Super Committee that was given the power to make change quit in defeat and subsequently $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts to take effect in 2013 were directed to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Pentagon (over half the cuts are in the defense budget). The President had 2 options – stick with the agreement made at the time the budget was passed or once again shut us down with new negotiations; he chose to keep the agreement. I’m sure that he feels as I do – there is hope that the 2012 budget situation will overturn at least some of the automatic cuts. Now back to the debate. 

Gingrich was asked to address Paul’s remarks that he is a chicken hawk. Gingrich said he grew up in a military family (dad was in the army for 27 years) and he has background in non-military but associated tasks, he pointed out that the veterans in the North Country (this would be Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont) have to go to Boston for aide and that’s fundamentally wrong. Paul also acknowledged that the veteran situation is bad, he’s trying to stop the undeclared wars (I thought Bush initiated the war on terrorism) but did say he’d make the comment again. Gingrich said Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false, he (Gingrich) didn’t have to join as he was married with a child and wasn’t eligible for the draft. Paul said he too was married but with 2 children and went when he was called. 

January 2012 Debate Continued

In the January 7, 2012 debate Santorum was asked what he meant by his statement – we don’t need a CEO, we don’t need a manager as President. His response – we need a leader, someone who can paint a positive vision for this country, someone who has the experience to be the commander-in-chief; he said he has 8 years on the Armed Services Committee, managed major pieces of legislation through the House and Senate on national security issues like Iran which is the most pressing issue we have today and like Newt said no one has more experience with that country than he (Santorum), someone who can paint a vision of what America’s strength is about, let our allies know that they can trust us and let us enemies know they have to respect us and if they cross us they should fear us. In regard to Romney Santorum said he has business experience that doesn’t match up; we need someone who can inspire. Romney responded with career politicians need to be in the business world first to know managing is leadership. Gingrich was directed to respond to his attacks regarding Romney’s tenure as CEO at Bain Capital – saying it’s a story of greed, stripping American businesses of assets, selling everything to the highest bidder, often killing jobs for big financial rewards. Gingrich response – he said it reflects the New York Times story of 2 days ago; he’s very much in favor of free enterprise, creating business, growing jobs, providing leadership. Gingrich went on to say that he’s not nearly enamored with the Wall Street model where you can flip companies, have leveraged buyouts, you can take out all the money leaving behind all the workers and people need to decide if on balance were people better or worse off with this style of investment (bankrupting companies and laying off workers). Romney’s response was he’s proud of the jobs he has done and the overall net was he created jobs. Romney said let’s not forget that this is a free enterprise system and we don’t need government coming in telling us how to make businesses work. Huntsman was brought into the discussion. He said he comes from manufacturing and people need to look at a person’s record but thinks that somebody’s record as Governor is probably more telling of how they would be as President. Huntsman said he took his state (Utah) to #1 in job creation, initiated a flat tax, and reformed health care without a mandate. Romney’s response was that he commends Huntsman and we need a President who understands the economy and job creation.

The debate went to Paul’s attack on Santorum in which he called him a corrupt corporate lobbyist, a Washington insider with a record of betrayal – Paul said it was based on somebody’s survey, he voted to raise the debt limit 5 times, voted against the right to work, voted for no child left behind and a prescription drug program, he’s a big spender and took money from lobbyists. Santorum’s response was the information was by a group called Crew and if you haven’t been sued by Crew you’re not a conservative, he said he’s not a libertarian as he believes in some government and considers himself a cause guy that gets involved in causes he believes in (worked to defeat cap and trade in regard to coal/global warming). Paul’s response was that Santorum is a big spender and he (Paul) voted against spending. Santorum responded with - he voted for a balanced budget, line item veto, welfare and social security reform and worked on Medicare and Medicaid. After some bantering – Perry said you just saw a great example of why I got in this race; I’m not an insider from Washington or Wall Street.

I had no clue what cap and trade meant. Per sightline.org, the ‘cap’ is a legal limit on the quantity of greenhouse gases that a region can emit each year and ‘trade’ means that companies may swap among themselves the permission – or permits – to emit greenhouse gases. Sightline says to make cap and trade work best a program must have: (1) a Comprehensive scope – the cap covers all measurable emissions of greenhouse gases to ensure an efficient, economy-wide transition away from carbon-based fuels, (2) an Upstream regulation - operates where fossil fuels enter the economy, that fewer than one-tenth of one percent of businesses interact with the system, (3) Auctioned permits - energy companies pay for permits in order to compensate families for the burden of expensive energy, (4) Limited offsets – that is limited alternatives to carbon permits to ensure cap and trade goals; they need to be strictly limited, well-defined, and closely regulated, and (5) Auction revenues - the money from auctioned permits can be returned to families or invested in clean energy efficient technology and create green-collar jobs. President Obama has made it clear that establishing a bold cap and trade program is a priority. The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454) in June 2009, it would cap carbon emissions at 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, gradually lowers the cap to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. Unfortunately the bill allows for substantial use of offsets and only auctions 15% of permits in the initial years (ramping up to 70% auctions by 2030) but it remains a giant leap toward a clean energy economy. The American Power Act was recently introduced in the Senate and they have pledged action on energy legislation before the end of the year. Sightline argues that if we create the right kind of system we not only get off the fossil-fuels roller coaster but speed the transition to a clean energy economy that puts the interest of people before interests of polluters. Cap and trade provides the framework to commit us to responsible limits on global warming emissions and with commonsense rules it’ll spark the competitiveness and ingenuity of the marketplace to reduce emissions as smoothly, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible.

Size of US Government As Of 2011

The Bush Administration continued the regulatory review program of the Reagan Presidency. Nonetheless, the pace of new health, safety, and environmental regulations that had begun to increase at the end of the Reagan Administration continued during the first two years of the Bush Administration. In 1990, President George HW Bush responded to expressions of concern about increasing regulatory burdens by returning to the approach used by the Reagan Task Force on Regulatory Relief. Vice President Quayle was placed in charge of a task force -- now called the Competitiveness Council -- whose mission was to provide regulatory relief.

On September 30, 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review." The Order reaffirmed the legitimacy of centralized review but reestablished the primacy (dominance) of the agencies in regulatory decision making. It retained the requirement for analysis of benefits and costs, quantified to the maximum extent possible, and the general principle that the benefits of intended regulations should justify the costs. In addition, while continuing the basic framework of regulatory review established in 1981, it made several changes in response to criticisms that had been voiced against the Reagan/Bush programs.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid; and the Department of Defense (DOD) and the State Department administer military and other security-related programs. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is a new foreign aid agency created in 2004. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under the Department of Defense has more than 26,000 civilian and military personnel throughout the world; it provides supplies to the military services and supports their acquisition of weapon repair part and other material and therefore is an integral part of the nation's military defense. It also provides crucial relief to victims of natural disasters and humanitarian aid to those around the world in need.

The House of Representatives is limited to a membership of 435 (currently each represent 600,000+ people) due to the Reapportionment Act enacted June 18, 1929. The Senate is limited to 2 senators per state. I looked at this because I thought we could reduce the Legislature; I’ve decided to leave it alone as its size should not grow regardless of any population increase. 

What I got out of everything I read is that our government has grown because our world has changed a lot in the last 50 years. We as a people have concerns with the civil rights and safety of the people which in many cases includes the environment (not only air pollution but business practices that hinder ground water and soil contamination). Johnson’s war on poverty has not been resolved as we still have 15% of our people in poverty and the argument over business regulations has been going on for all 50 years; on one hand we yell that the government only inspects about 1-2% of the products produced while on the other we want our safety concerns to be addressed. This issue continues to cause me confusion – we know the government cannot 100% protect us from business practices that cause us harm and yet we want to reduce our production standards that cost businesses money while those same businesses are able to donate billions in campaign funds. We as a people must decide if it’s the responsibility of business, the government or ourselves to keep us safe.

The easiest increase in our government to spot was with increased aviation and the war on terror which has increased our nation’s overall size and budget dramatically. During the January 7, 2012 debate Rick Perry said reducing our military is jeopardizing our freedom and Ron Paul said the Patriot Act was wrong and he wants to stop undeclared wars. I hope many others thought that after the September 11, 2011 attacks we were justified in being active in finding those that attacked; whether the intelligence information given to Bush was right or wrong. Should we have done nothing, cowered and lost the respect of a world that looks to us for strength? I personally do not think that turning a blind eye was an action that we could afford as such would clearly allow other attacks on our nation and therefore jeopardize the freedoms that we have that many in the world do not. I don’t want Big Brother controlling all of my actions as in other countries like China, North Korea, or Iran, the countries we should watch the most. So, we as a people must decide if we are willing to give $10 a year or $1 a month to protect us from terrorism. We as a people must also decide if we want to continue providing humanitarian aid to those inside and outside our country; this is more of a spiritual decision that could include a trade-off between the millions spent on criminals versus helping those that have committed no crime.

I believe that most of the policies of our nation have all been implemented with good intentions but over the years we have gone astray and we need to revisit the actual performance of many of the programs to see that the comply with their initial intentions. As such, I do not believe that we should blindly cut the cost of our government nor do I think we should cut the government to suit business alone. We need to stop believing that China and others took American jobs when it fact they were given by our companies and state governments.    

Government Regulation Since Kennedy

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 was amended in 1980 and charged each Federal agency with the affirmative responsibility for considering projects and programs that further the purposes of the NHPA and declared that the costs of preservation activities are eligible project costs in all undertakings conducted or assisted by a Federal agency. The 1992 amendments to the Act further strengthened the provisions - the head of each Federal agency must assume responsibility for the preservation of historic properties owned or controlled by the agency, establish a preservation program for the identification, evaluation, nomination to the National Register, and protection of historic properties, consult with the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Director of the National Park Service) in establishing its preservation programs, and to the maximum extent feasible, each agency must use historic properties available to it in carrying out its responsibilities. The 1992 additions to the NHPA set out some specific benchmarks for preservation programs, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) created in 1978 and now under the Department of Homeland Security which was created in 2002.

Four social and environmental regulatory agencies were created due to the heightened attention to civil rights, environmental, and consumer issues of the 1960s and 1970s; they are the (1) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created in 1964 by Johnson, (2) Environmental Protection Agency created in 1970 with Nixon, (3) Occupational Safety and Health Administration created in 1970 by Nixon, and (4) the Consumer Product Safety Commission created in 1972. A number of organizations were lobbying Congress for the rights of older Americans; this effort led to the 1965 creation of Medicare and Medicaid and the passage of the Older Americans Act. 

The Nixon Administration established in 1971 a little known review group in the White House called the "Quality of Life Review" program that focused solely on environmental regulations to minimize burdens on business. The reviews did not utilize analysis of the benefits and costs to society; the controversy from the program began a debate about both Presidential review of regulations and the use of benefit-cost analysis that would continue for two decades and to some extent continues today. Soon after Gerald Ford became President in 1974, he held an economic summit that included top industry leaders and economists to seek solutions to the stagflation and slow growth that the nation was then facing. Out of that summit came proposals to establish a new government agency in the Executive Office of the President, called the Council on Wage and Price Stability (CWPS), to monitor the inflationary actions of both the government and private sectors of the economy. It also led President Ford to issue Executive Order 11821, requiring government agencies to prepare inflation impact statements before they issued costly new regulations. The innovative aspect of the Ford program was the creation of a specific White House agency to review the inflationary actions, mainly regulations, of other government agencies. CWPS was staffed primarily by economists drawn from academia and had little authority beyond the influence of public criticism.

After President Carter came to office in 1977, the regulating agencies argued that the Executive Office of the President should not have a role in reviewing their regulations. On the other hand, the President's chief economic advisers argued that a centralized review program based on careful economic analysis was necessary to assure that regulatory burdens on the economy were properly considered and that the regulations that were issued were cost effective. Rapidly escalating inflation in 1978 convinced President Carter to act and in March of 1978, he issued Executive Order 12044, "Improving Government Regulations." It established general principles for agencies to follow when regulating and required regulatory analysis to be done for rules that "may have major economic consequences for the general economy, for individual industries, geographical regions or levels of government." President Carter also set up a new group, called the Regulatory Analysis Review Group with instructions to review up to ten of the most important regulations each year; it was chaired by the Council of Economic Advisors. It was said that because American capitalism proved too fluid and complex to lend itself to minute regulatory control as developed by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and industries under ICC supervision tended to stagnate because entrepreneurial opportunity was too constricted that it was not until the deregulation movement of the late 1980s and 1990s did some ICC regulated industries again become vibrant parts of the national economy, by which time the ICC itself had been abolished by Congress in 1995. In 1985, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12498, "Regulatory Planning Process," that further strengthened OMB's oversight role by extending it earlier into the regulatory development process. The Order required that agencies annually send OMB a detailed plan on all the significant rules that they had under development. OMB coordinated the plans with other interested agencies and could recommend modifications. It also compiled these detailed descriptions of the agencies' most important rules -- usually about 500 -- in one large volume called the Regulatory Program of the U.S. Government. No, I’m still not done. 

US Government Since Kennedy

To address Romney’s comment regarding the growth of government since Kennedy. After going through pages and pages of information on the internet, here’s what I got in a nut shell.  

Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty and in August 1964, Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act that created an Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) within the executive branch, OEO administered 10 separate programs aimed at eliminating the symptoms and causes of poverty. In 1965, Congress passed the Public Works and Economic Development Act (PW&EDA), which reorganized the Areas Redevelopment Administration into the Economic Federal Rural Development Policy and the Economic Development Administration (EDA). Like its predecessor, EDA primarily dispensed business loans and public works grants. From 1965 to 1972, EDA’s overall experience was “mixed,” as some programs were very successful while others accomplished little. The main problems were political pressure to disperse aid to as many congressional districts as possible and as a result not enough assistance was targeted to those areas that might have benefited most from it. Kennedy established the President’s Regional Appalachian Commission which on March 9, 1965, became the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) with an act signed by President Johnson. ARC was a hybrid institution - a confederation of States acting on a regional basis funded by congressional appropriations.

It may be hard for us to believe how serious we all were in 1965 about eliminating poverty, and how deeply many people believed that it could and should be done, and quickly. Both OEO and Commerce had huge programs and even greater ambitions by 1965. In February 1965, following the issuance of Johnson's Executive Order 11307, the Rural Community Development Service (RCDS) was created to coordinate rural development outreach for USDA and other departments. This new agency was an expanded version of the Office of Rural Areas Development which had been in existence since 1961; the Economic Development Division (EDD) of the Economic Research Service was also created in 1965. The 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act also enhanced rural housing prospects because of its provision for interest supplements to low-income families.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1862), has grown over time so that it now regulates the price, production, import, and export of agricultural crops; the safety of meat, poultry, and certain other food products; a wide variety of other agricultural and farm-related activities; and broad-reaching welfare programs. Agriculture regulatory authorities have changed over time, but now include the U.S. Forest Service (1905), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (1935), the Foreign Assistance Act created Farm Service Agency (1961), the Food and Consumer Service (1969), the Agricultural Marketing Service (1972), the Federal Grain Inspection Service (1976), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (1977), the Foreign Agricultural Service (1974), the Food Safety and Inspection Service (1981), and the Rural Development Administration (1990).

In 1966, Congress created the Department of Transportation (DOT) which began full operations on April l, 1967; it combined major federal transportation responsibilities. On that day, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) became one of several organizations within DOT including the National Transportation Safety Board. There have been many changes and additions to the FAA’s responsibilities including noise standards (1968), the Airport and Airway Development Act (1970), and due in part to the competitive environment created by the Airline Deregulation Act (1978) that phased out CAB's economic regulation of the airlines and ended CAB at the end of 1984 the FAA's organizational structure has continued to evolve. FAA transferred much of its authority to regional organizations until the Aviation Safety Research Act (1988) again charged managers at national headquarters with more direction of field activities and mandated greater emphasis on long-range research planning, studying such issues as aging aircraft structures and human factors affecting safety. In February 1991, the FAA replaced the National Airspace System Plan with the more comprehensive Capital Investment Plan. The new plan included higher levels of automation, new radar, communications, and weather forecasting systems. In 1994, the FAA was restructured along its six key lines of business to make better use of resources and it began enhancing the ATC system while working to apply a Global Positioning System satellite technology to civil aeronautics and other notable programs that included progress toward the implementation of Free Flight, a concept that increased the flexibility to fly direct routes from one point to another. A seventh line of business was added one year later when the Office of Commercial Space Transportation was transferred to the FAA from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The addition of this office gave FAA regulatory responsibilities relating to the launching of space payloads by the private sector. During 1996, reform legislation made further important changes that included increased flexibility for the FAA regarding acquisition and personnel policies. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, dealt a severe blow to U.S. civil aviation and just 2 months after the attack the government transferred aviation security oversight from the FAA to the new Transportation Security Administration within the Department of Transportation. No, I’m not done with my nutshell – to be continued tomorrow. 

January Debate - Tax Loopholes

To continue with yesterday’s blog, I first have to say that both Romney and Gingrich mentioned getting away from other countries for our energy needs and yet Gingrich said we need to find modern ways to bring electricity from Quebec to Boston. I believe that Quebec is in Canada and not the US.

Now, in connection with the jobs and infrastructure question Huntsman was asked where the money would come from – he said he would keep out all the loopholes in the tax code which would give us $1 trillion ($1 billion in revenue per the Simpson Bowles Commission appointed by Obama). Santorum said we should only have 5 deductions – health care, housing, pensions, children and charities and cut corporate taxes to 17.5%; 30 years ago business and labor didn’t understand global competiveness and they made a lot of mistakes but that’s not what’s happening now; they’re running into government taxation (35%), he wants zero taxes for manufacturers and processors so we can compete in the global market and reduce the regulations that cost businesses over $100 million; he said with Obama last year there are 150 of these regulations and on average only 60 for each year of the Clinton and Bush administrations; he’d either eliminate these regulations or find ones that wouldn’t cost so much. Romney said we can’t go to zero taxes; during Kennedy’s administration (1961 – 1963) government was 27% of our cost and now it’s 37%; government needs to be scaled back, reduce taxes to 25% and give to the people who need it most – the middle class; no taxes on savings, dividends or capital gains for them; Romney agreed with Huntsman that we need to scale back on taxes but doesn’t agree with increasing capital gain taxes.  

My response to all this is – I don’t believe we should eliminate all tax loopholes (deductions) as Huntsman suggests. I not sure what Santorum meant by pensions being deductable – if he meant the money put into them only, I’m okay with this as the funds are taxed when received. If he meant the income from a pension should be 100% deductable then I wonder if Social Security (SS) would be considered a pension and no longer taxed; this opens up a new can of worms. I believe that providing a zero tax to any industry as Santorum suggests is just as bad as the farming subsidies given to the non farmers and the oil industry (mostly rich people). In September 2011 it was reported that the Census Bureau showed 1 in 6 Americans are living below the poverty level which is $22,314 for a family of 4. So I think that only people or businesses at or below poverty level should go untaxed. By the way, many Republicans are not in favor of this thinking and also have problems with what they call entitlements (food stamps, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare); I think SS and Medicare are entitlements because I paid into them, the others are government gifts that need to be looked at (not eliminated) for their application of the programs. I also believe that corporations should be taxed in accordance with revenue earned and not have a set corporate tax. On January 11, per Forrester, 4.5 million jobs went to China in the last decade and 3 million of those are to come back in the next 5 years and on this same date it was reported that the President gathered CEOs and is calling for tax breaks for companies bringing jobs back. This leads me to believe that the problem with American business was not government taxation but plain old greed. It irks me that the companies have to be given a tax break (subsidy) in order to support the people and this country. As far as regulations, I’m sick of hearing about how they eat into profits when lives are constantly at risk. I do believe that we have laws and regulations that can change. For example, there are so many laws that cause food to be thrown in garbage cans instead of going to the needy. Perhaps laws can be changed so that restaurants and food outlets must contact non-profit groups, e.g., Senior Gleaners, food banks, shelters, and others to get rid of the food that’s still good that usually ends up in dumpsters (there was an Oprah show that showed people diving and finding good food in dumpsters).

Don’t be fooled with Romney’s comment regarding no taxes on interest on savings, dividends or capital gains. Romney agreed with Huntsman that we need to scale back on taxes but doesn’t agree with increasing capital gain taxes so I believe that he knows that would most likely benefit the well to do and not the middle class as he indicates. I think that savings, money markets and Certificates of Deposit (the average American’s way of putting aside money) should require about $100 earnings before being taxed. (Dividends and capital gains come from ventures with business and/or Wall Street.)

Romney pointed out the growth in government since Kennedy and this needs more time and space to be responded to so I’ll get to this later. 

January 7, 2011 - Jobs & Infrastructure

Prior to the debate, it was reported that the turnout for the Iowa Republican caucus set a record, Romney won with 8 votes over Santorum who was in 5^th place until then (a vote counter alleged that Romney was given votes and on January 18 they said Santorum won by 34). The placement of the remaining candidates was: Paul (21%), Gingrich (13%), Perry (10%), Bachmann (5%) and Huntsman (1%). John McCann endorsed Romney; Perry decided to stay in the race and Bachmann quit. On January 6, 2011 the Boston Globe endorsed Huntsman.

On January 7 ABC (Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos and Josh McElveen of WMUR TV) held a debate in New Hampshire. The first question was – We saw 200,000 jobs created last month and optimists say this is a sign of a turnaround, are you in line with this? Romney responded with – I am an optimist and hope to see good news, there are 25 million Americans that need jobs but it’s not because of President Obama; his policies have made the recession deeper and the recovery more tepid; from Obama care, Dodd-Frank, to a stimulus plan that wasn’t as well directed as it should have been, to a host of new regulations that have made it hard for small entrepreneurs and big business to invest in America. My response is - per tradingecomomics.com, the unemployment rate in the United States fell to 8.5 percent in December of 2011, the lowest since February 2009. From 1948 until 2010 the United States' Unemployment Rate averaged 5.70 percent reaching an historical high of 10.80 percent in November of 1982 (during Reagan’s tenure) and a record low of 2.50 percent in May of 1953. The labor force is defined as the number of people employed plus the number unemployed but seeking work. The non-labor force includes those who are not looking for work, those who are institutionalized and those serving in the military. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics - Both the number of unemployed persons (13.1 million) and the unemployment rate (8.5 percent) continued to trend down in December. I don’t know where Romney came up with 25 million people unemployed. I did learn that historically about 50% of new businesses fail but could not find any information to support that failure was due to new regulations. 

After discussing other issues, the debate went back to jobs and an infrastructure example (I-93 project that is about $350 million away from completion) was given. Romney said there are certain things the government can do to rebuild an economy and improving our infrastructure (bridges, roads, rail beds, and air transportation) is one of them but fundamentally the government gets in the way of creating jobs; it taxes to much, it regulates too much, it has energy policies that keep us from using our own energy, it has trade policies that too often favor those taking jobs away from us; we need to change so that we’re encouraging the private sector; he said the President wants to turn us into a European welfare state that takes from some to give to others and that will kill our ability for a prosperous future, to secure our freedom and provide for the rights given under the Constitution. Gingrich said you can’t compete with China if you have an inferior infrastructure; he said the Northern Pass project ought to be buried and use state right-of-ways and modern ways to bring electricity from Quebec to Boston; he would have an energy plan to get us away from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela and two-thirds of the revenue from that would go to debt reduction and one-third to infrastructure.

If you’re like me, you had no clue what the projects they were discussing were about. The Rebuilding I-93 site said it’s the widening of a 20 mile segment between Exits 1 and 5 from the Massachusetts Stateline to Manchester, New Hampshire (NH); the overall goal is to make the I-93 corridor safer and improve mobility. I-93 is one of the state's (NH’s) principal arterials and is critical to the economic vitality of the state, region and local communities. The Northern Pass transmission project is said to create a new connection between Hydro-Québec's world-class hydroelectric resources and the New England "power pool" that supplies electricity to all customers in the region. The heart of this project is the construction of a direct current (DC) transmission line that will bring up to 1,200 megawatts of hydroelectric power into the region, providing much-needed fuel diversity, lowering energy costs and lessening our reliance on fossil fuels. Along with the construction of the DC line, the project will include the construction of a converter terminal in Franklin, NH to convert the electricity from direct current to alternating current (AC), as well as the construction of a new AC transmission line from the converter terminal to an existing substation in Deerfield, NH. According to Wikipedia, ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) is an independent, non-profit Regional Transmission Organization serving Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York state when the need arises. ISO-NE was created in 1997 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a replacement for the NE Power Pool of 1971; the Board of Directors and over 400 employees have no financial interest or ties to any company doing business in the region's wholesale electricity marketplace. One of its major duties is to provide tariffs for the prices, terms, and conditions of the energy supply in NE. It is responsible for reliably operating New England's 32,000 megawatt bulk electric power generation and transmission system of its member utilities, as well as Hydro-Québec, NB Power, and the New York Power Authority. I didn’t feel Romney answered the question at all and Gingrich gave a better answer. After reading about the Northern Pass project, I’m not sure it should be buried as Gingrich suggests.

More 2011 Surveys

Whether or not the government gave money to these studies and surveys, here are more that I have issues with or just think were a waste of time and money in 2011:

1.     The American Academy of Sleep Medicine finds 1 in 4 US workers are affected by insomnia. Some researchers said that statistically Monday is the most depressive day of the week, we don’t smile until 11:16 and we only have 3 ½ hours of productive time. GMA reported that a study found we complain for 34 minutes on Mondays and 22 minutes on the other work days.

2.     I heard drug companies are working on a men’s birth control pill. You can see a condom but not a swallowed pill so I don’t think women would trust them to use it. This expense goes right along with the drugs for an erection which I would rather see spent on other things.

3.     Researchers said that married people that have been together 8 years or more are more likely to pick up their partners bad habits than the good ones and almost in every case it’s the man that’s the bad influence.

4.     A study found that 90% of the perishables in bagged lunches get too warm to prevent food borne illness even with an ice pack. I do wonder how I and obviously many others survived these lunches all these years.

5.     A Johns Hopkins researcher said cartoon characters are getting children to nag their parents for fatty food. Critics said food marketers know this and exploit it. When asked by ABC reporter Dan Harris if cartoon characters should be banned like Joe Camel, the researcher said no but wishes they’d use them to market healthier food. She pointed to another study she did that found if you wrap carrots in a McDonald’s packaging that kids actually say the carrots taste better. 

6.     The University of Arizona came up with a list of the dirtiest things that will make you sick; gas pumps, public mailbox handles, escalator rails, ATM buttons and parking meters. The ladies on the Talk added: elevator buttons, hotel remote controls, phones, bedspreads, light switches and peanuts on a bar.

7.     Although Darwin studied it first, the University of Virginia found that when you smile your muscles send a message to the part of your brain that controls emotion and people with smiles are happier; bottom line - a smile is free and it may help you live longer.

8.     The Center for Disease Control data showed the top 5 cities with insomniacs are: Detroit, Michigan, Birmingham, Alabama, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, New Orleans, Louisiana and New York City, New York.

9.     AAA gas surveys make me crazy. The octane and state gas taxes are not the same in all states; this is not taken into account and their surveys are distorted. The same can be said of the poverty index; the cost of living is not the same in every state therefore poverty in one state could be lower middle class in another.

10.  Notre Dame found that nice guys finish last. Less agreeable men make 18% more and women 5% more. I hope people don’t use this information to get belligerent with their bosses. A good boss will listen to a person with different ideas as long as they solve a problem; they will not just argue for argument sake. I think you better have something productive to offer before disagreeing with the boss or you’ll just get fired. There was apparently a study published in the Wall Street Journal that found the more power the person in the office has the less likely they are to take advice from their underlings because they have inflated confidence; the study also found that female bosses listen better than men. Now isn’t that a surprise.     

11.  There was a study that found 13% of the people faked a phone call so they didn’t have to talk to someone.

12.  A Harvard study said attending one rain free 4^th of July event before the age of 18 makes children more likely to become Republicans. If this were true it must rain a lot to have so many Democrats, or there’s a lot of people who do not celebrate the event, or we have a lot of Republicans that don’t vote.

13.  Ohio State University found that woman put on weight immediately after the wedding (within 2 years) and gain some after a divorce but men put on up to 20 pounds within a year after a divorce. Researchers also said that if you’re older (over 30) when you get divorced it’s more of a shock; you gain more weight and are more likely to keep it on. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that dating people are the thinnest, not dating but single are heavier, living with someone still heavier and married the heaviest. 

14.  Professor Nicholas Christenfeld of the University of California, San Diego, had test subjects read a dozen short stories and found that they enjoyed it more when they already knew the ending; they insist that anticipation is more fun than surprise (knowing an ending doesn’t stop kids from watching a movie over and over).

15.  There was a study that found anger drives heart attacks; laughter may be an antidote and a survey by adult products maker Adam & Eve that said 80% of couples talk dirty while having sex.

16.  A Philippine study of 600 men found that their testosterone level decreased the more they handled their kids. Dr. Besser says this study says that it’s time to stay home and take care of the kids and stop going out trying to mate. I’m glad this was not paid for with US money but I bet it won’t help with male child care or reduce the number of adulterers. With this logic you’d think men would not want to be polygamists. 

Internet Laws

So, what was yesterday, January 18, 2012, all about?

The US House of Representatives is proposing the Stop Online Privacy Act - HR 3261 (the Senate has a comparable bill SB968 - PIPA) that would shut down an online domain if any copyright material was obtained online without the permission of the material’s owner. I previously stated the Act is described by Stephen Colbert as “The worst proposed internet law in American history”, Wikipedia calls the bill an “Internet Blacklist Bill” and Nancy Pelosi says – they (Congress) need to do something but this is not it. 

In addition to holding the actual individual who posted or obtained the information liable, the Act would, for example, hold Yahoo liable if the song, movie or whatever was posted on Yahoo and subsequently shut Yahoo down. On December 24, 2011 it was reported that movie ticket sales were down 4% ($500 million) and if Christmas movies didn’t fare well the loss may reach 5% making it the largest drop in 16 years. I believe this was a part of the reason for the Act’s origin.

Do you want the government to become the eyes and ears of the internet? Do we (the US) let our people continue to hear and see everything and decide for themselves (freedom of speech) if they want to believe what they hear or see or do we want our government to do what China does and ban items with certain content?

I just learned that most of the piracy on movies comes because Hollywood and others release their movies in other countries before they are released here in the US. The movies are placed on the internet by individuals in the other countries and US individuals watch them off the website instead of going to the movies. I think this is a business problem and Hollywood should help itself by not releasing films, DVDs, or whatever in other countries before they hit the theaters here. The US people or the internet media should not have our government taking drastic measures to try and stop piracy on the receiving end. I believe this is the lobbyists paying off your representative because the companies can’t think of alternative solutions by themselves.

I don’t like that bombers get information off the internet, that Americans are recruited for Al Qaeda over the internet or that hackers are running rampant. I believe that bombers would continue to get their information in another way and many people are foolish enough to listen to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, White Supremacy and more. I also believe the people actually committing a crime should be punished. We currently punish the bomber, the traitor, etc. for their part in a crime and I think this is the way piracy should be handled; punish the offender, the one who put the information out there instead of the group that is obtaining the movie or song for free or the domain the criminal chose to use.

Apparently piracy has become as common as jaywalking. If an American puts the pirated information online and is caught, he/she is punished via US law. But, the internet problem is bigger than piracy. On January 16 we heard that online retailer Zappos.com said hackers may have accessed 24 million accounts and have the passwords which could jeopardize other accounts of their customers. And, a recent survey found that 90% of all companies said they’ve been hacked at one time or other.

Hackers and illegal piracy are just part of the internet crime ring. People are using the internet to commit other crimes such as human trafficking, child pornography and more that we have laws against and all of these should be punished. The real problem is that the US has no authority over what people from outside the US are doing so to protect the pirated business they want to punish the domain and therefore all Americans.

We have world organizations of many kinds and perhaps we should initiate a world group that allows for those committing the actual piracy or other crime via the internet to be punished in their country via world internet law. 

2011 Foolish Medical Studies

There is a lot of talk about reducing government and we know Congress is not talking about eliminating themselves so the reduction would come from the low level federal employees. I think before eliminating employees, the government needs to look at where they put their grant money. Although I agree that we need more research in the medical field, here’s a few studies make me think we need to stop the foolishness and get down to the real medical problems.  

1.     Social, Psychological and Personality Science magazine published an article saying that a 4 year study of 169 newlywed couples shows marriages are more satisfying if the wife is thinner than the husband and when the man is more powerful in a benign way. It was noted that 94% of the couples were under age 35 and White.

2.     Per GMA, in a wide ranging study researchers are saying that for every 4 inches of height you have a greater chance of getting cancer. However, shorter people don’t have an advantage because taller people have better overall health.

3.     A Princeton University study of primates found it’s stressful at the top which goes against past findings that it got easier as you climbed the corporate ladder. The study also found that the lower level were stressed trying to hang on and middle management was the best place to be.

4.     Per Barbara Walters psychiatrists or psychologists are saying it’s okay to have sex with a baby sleeping in the bed if you can do it without noise. My Issues: baby may get hurt, baby won’t stay asleep and you may not get any sleep and the baby shouldn’t be old enough to wonder what you are doing. And, if you’re concerned for the baby, you’ll worry about him/her and the sex is no good.

5.     An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association written by Harvard Child Obesity expert Dr. David Ludwig says that obese kids should be taken away from their parents and put in foster care. What a ridiculous use of our tax dollars! In 2008 17% of our children were found to be obese up from 5% in 1974. I agree with Dr. Besser, demonizing parents is the wrong approach. Going after restaurants and junk food producers, schools that don’t have gym class and neighborhoods with only fast food are a better approach. Parents are part of the problem and I agree with Julie Chen that it would be better for doctors to help parents learn how to feed their kids. I believe this would also help determine if the cause is medical instead of poor eating habits like the Albuquerque girl. And there was a study that said kids in sports are more likely to take care of their bodies and not be overweight and have better self esteem. I really needed a study to tell me this.

6.     Per Whoopi, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine posted a billboard in Indiana with the web site www.CancerProject.org  and a warning that hotdogs are as bad as cigarettes. Per Barbara, an American Institute for Cancer Research study says processed meat that has been smoked, cured, or preserved with certain chemicals such as nitrates – one serving per day can increase your risk of co-rectal (colon) cancer by 20%. I guess they never heard that Betty White eats hotdogs, French fries and red licorice and Rita Moreno says she eats all the greasy food she can get. And I’ve heard many people living to be 100 say they smoked, drank and had no special diets. I remember when it was said that the egg was harmful; now it’s the potato that is the worst food to eat and there’s a study saying potato chips are causing cancer. With all the foods they say are bad for you it’s no wonder that anorexia and bulimia occur in some which also isn’t healthy. We need to get back to ‘everything in moderation’.

7.     Psychology Today apologized for printing an article saying Black women are not pretty when most Black women feel they are. We all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some like fat, some like skinny, some like the blond blue eyed, etc. We need to stop listening to foolish rhetoric by supposedly intelligent people. Pay attention, these people fight with each other constantly over diets, economics, etc. They have no more scientific data than you do. By the way, because of the uproar, the writer was fired. I guess freedom of speech doesn’t always work.

8.     Researchers at Indiana University say that women are just about as likely to cheat as men. Men do it for sex and women do it because they’re unhappy in their relationship or their beliefs are different than their partners. I thought this was interesting because I it made sense that they be cheating with each other.  

There will be no blog tomorrow, January 18, in solidarity of the groups against the Stop Online Privacy Act - HR 3261 that is described by Stephen Colbert as “The worst proposed internet law in American history”, Wikipedia calls the bill an “Internet Blacklist Bill” and Nancy Pelosi says – they (Congress) need to do something but this is not it.