GOP Inconsistent on Defense

[email protected] – Republicans War Fetish

Jack Hunter takes the GOP to task on the one issue too many Republicans still consider non-negotiable. I agree with Hunter and want to add my frustration with the GOP’s inconsistent view of the Department of Defense.

The rule that waste, fraud, duplication, mismanagement, abuse, and inefficiency are natural consequences of major federal programs and departments applies to the Defense department as well.

In particular, the rule that all federal departments grow in size and scope is overlooked by many Republicans when it comes to defense. The original mission of federal defense was to defend only the United States , but has grown to defending the world.

There are ten Unified Combatant Commands; six regional and four functional

This map shows (AOR) Area of Responsibility for the six regional Combatant Commands. The original AOR for the Defense Department (originally called the War Department) was basically only one sixth of what it is today.

The Defense Department is run by an out of control government and subject to the same mismanagement and abuse by the President and congress as all other departments. Pointing this out should not be considered blasphemy.

Pointing out the inconsistent view within the GOP should not be seen criticizing the US Armed Forces personnel. Its a compliment to America’s fighting forces that they’ve repeatedly shown they are effective despite being run from DC.

Share Button

Four Beheaded in the War on Drugs

(Reuters) -Thirteen killed in crime wave at Mexico’s Acapulco

Thirteen people were killed in and around the Mexican beach resort of Acapulco early on Saturday in apparent drug-related violence, with four victims found beheaded, security officials said. WORLD Five of those killed were police officers whose night-time patrol was attacked by gunmen on the outskirts of Acapulco, a Pacific Ocean resort popular with tourists, the security officials said in a statement. The bullet-riddled bodies of eight other men were discovered in different areas around Acapulco, and four of them had been beheaded, the officials added.

One of the reasons alcohol prohibition was repealed in the US was the public became fed up with stories just like this. How many more innocent people must die before we learn the same lesson: that drug prohibition does not decrease addiction or crime?  The reason for drug prohibition was to protect innocent lives, and yet here again drug prohibition results in the murder of innocent people.

Just as banning pizza would not cause the nation to loose weight because there would still be plenty of other ways to get fat, ending drug prohibition will not lead to an increase in addicts. It will just give those with addiction problems more ways to destroy their lives. Those seeking to escape from reality will always find something that isn’t in their best interest to fulfill their desire. There has been, and always will be, a certain percent of the population that has a propensity to become addicted to something.

There are people who do not touch alcohol even though its legal, because they see it as a harm to their lives. These same people won’t be rushing out to buy illicit drugs once they become legal. If drug prohibition were ended, there are those that would prefer one addictive drug to another. They would switch from alcohol to a drug, but the number of addicts would basically stay the same.

How many more murders does it take to see the cure is worse than the disease?

Share Button

Hey Rangel: Would You be for Simple Tax Laws Now?

Charlie Rangel faces several charges of ethics violations and dodging taxes.

A quick summary of the charges from The Washington Post article,  “Rangel is alone in punishment but not wrongdoing”

The ethics committee scolded him for taking corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean, but has not yet ruled on claims about Rangel’s fundraising, his rent-controlled apartments, the taxes on his Dominican beach place, and even his storing of a vehicle without license plates in a House garage.

Here is another summary from NBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSdvbKsaimM

Rangel claims to have done nothing wrong, that none of the acts were intentional and are simply matters of forgetfulness and sloppiness. I want to assume Rangel is telling the truth and that they were all unintentional, because it makes a really good argument for making tax rules simpler. When someone who oversees the writing of tax laws can innocently break them, it’s a strong indication the laws are too damn complicated.

From the Cato Institute article 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax.

  • The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
  • 32 million IRS penalties assessed each year.
  • In 1913 there were only 400 pages in the federal tax rules, in 2003 the number of pages had risen to 54,846.

With fifty thousand plus pages of rules, anyone–even the person who writes the rules–could unknowingly violate the rules. I would not be surprised to find out all members in congress are in violation of at least one tax code. The tax code is to large to be comprehensible by a single person.

Expecting someone to not violate the massive amount of tax codes is comparable to a bad parent telling a child to behave, but not telling the child what constitutes good behavior. The bad parent only lets the child know the rules of good behavior once they have broken them.

The other reason I hope Rangel has done nothing wrong is that maybe Rangel will learn some compassion for others caught in the web he has helped weave. When an average citizen claims their were ignorant or forgetful or sloppy with the IRS, they have to prove their innocence. If those in congress feel the sting of being a mere mortal, then someday the tax codes might include an “innocent until proven guilty” clause.

Share Button

Hey Rangel: Would You be for Simple Tax Laws Now?

Charlie Rangel faces several charges of ethics violations and dodging taxes.

A quick summary of the charges from The Washington Post article,  “Rangel is alone in punishment but not wrongdoing”

The ethics committee scolded him for taking corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean, but has not yet ruled on claims about Rangel’s fundraising, his rent-controlled apartments, the taxes on his Dominican beach place, and even his storing of a vehicle without license plates in a House garage.

Here is another summary from NBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSdvbKsaimM

Rangel claims to have done nothing wrong, that none of the acts were intentional and are simply matters of forgetfulness and sloppiness. I want to assume Rangel is telling the truth and that they were all unintentional, because it makes a really good argument for making tax rules simpler. When someone who oversees the writing of tax laws can innocently break them, it’s a strong indication the laws are too damn complicated.

From the Cato Institute article 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax.

  • The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
  • 32 million IRS penalties assessed each year.
  • In 1913 there were only 400 pages in the federal tax rules, in 2003 the number of pages had risen to 54,846.

With fifty thousand plus pages of rules, anyone–even the person who writes the rules–could unknowingly violate the rules. I would not be surprised to find out all members in congress are in violation of at least one tax code. The tax code is to large to be comprehensible by a single person.

Expecting someone to not violate the massive amount of tax codes is comparable to a bad parent telling a child to behave, but not telling the child what constitutes good behavior. The bad parent only lets the child know the rules of good behavior once they have broken them.

The other reason I hope Rangel has done nothing wrong is that maybe Rangel will learn some compassion for others caught in the web he has helped weave. When an average citizen claims their were ignorant or forgetful or sloppy with the IRS, they have to prove their innocence. If those in congress feel the sting of being a mere mortal, then someday the tax codes might include an “innocent until proven guilty” clause.

Share Button

Unintended Consequence of Bailouts? More say its OK to Cheat on Taxes

DEMCAD asks, “If you knew someone was cheating on taxes, would you turn them in?”

DEMCAD mentions an IRS oversight board poll in which 13 percent of those surveyed believed cheating on taxes is acceptable, which is up from 9 percent the year before. Then DEMCAD questions if one of the unintended consequence of the big bailouts may be justification to cheat on taxes.

The IRS Oversight Board is independent from the IRS. The board has seven members appointed by the President of the United States. Of the seven, one must be a full-time federal employee or a representative of IRS employees. I’d provide a link to the boards site, but my shrewish fear of government has kicked in.

Even though the board is independent from the IRS, its not independent from the government and that makes its polling suspect. I think its safe to say even though its a government poll showing an increase in acceptance to cheat on taxes, that there really has been an increase because there is so much disappointment with DC.

I can’t say for certain the cause for the increase is the bailouts, but I think it’s probably one of many things the government has done that has weakened the public’s perception that it acts responsibly when spending tax dollars. The Air Force One flyover of New York still pops into my mind each time the subject of irresponsible spending comes up. The flyover was a grand public display of wasting tax dollars, or what government should not be doing.

The cheating the cheaters attitude has increased, and the don’t give money to addicts attitude is increasing also.

Share Button

If HealthCare Reform is Like Buying Meat: Hands off My Hotdog

I’m glad the President made a meat industry analogy, because its a good opportunity to point out the flaws in the President’s proposal.

President Obama at the Health Care Summit:

We could set up a system where food was cheaper than it is right now if we just eliminated meat inspectors, and we eliminated any regulations on how food is distributed and how its stored. I’ll bet in terms of drug prices we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn’t have a drug administration that makes sure that we test the drugs so that they don’t kill us, but we don’t do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives.

If the role of government in health insurance is analogous to the meat industry then according to the Presidents proposal –

  • We would all be required to purchase meat even if we didn’t want it.
  • We wouldn’t be able to choose between buying hotdogs or steaks; we have to buy steaks.
  • We could buy some steaks from some vendors in other states, but wouldn’t be able to buy hotdogs from anyone, anywhere.
  • Those too poor to afford meat would have free steaks, but not hotdogs.
  • The meat industry would be labeled greedy for profiting from people’s inevitable hunger.
  • Supermarkets would only be allowed to sell steaks.
  • We would all be protected from affordable meats like hotdogs, turkey, and chicken.

Its would be wrong to tell vegetarians to buy meat, and it’s equally wrong to tell Christian Scientists to buy health insurance. It would be an intrusion of government to decide which meats we can afford, just as its an overreach into our personal lives for DC to to tell us how much insurance to buy.

Forcing people to buy meat would only protect some meat companies, just as forcing people to buy health insurance only protects some insurance companies. The wide variety and affordable prices of meats at supermarkets didn’t come about through a DC-based algorithm of price controls and income-based prices. It came about by supply and demand and a free market.

To President Obama: stay away from my health insurance, and hands off my hotdog, too.

Share Button

Would a Politician Mind Being Slimed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QbhfbLUtQs

On You Can’t do That on Television, slime was poured whenever someone said, “I don’t know.”

Politicians have no qualms about modifying citizens’ behavior, so it would only be fair to treat them likewise. There should be a political talk show along these same lines as YCDTOTV, but with these rules for when the slime flows:

  • Accuse opponents of being hypocrites.
  • Ignores questions to repeat the same talking points they’ve already spouted.
  • Make appeals to popularity.
  • Villainize those with differing opinions.
  • Preach about being a better parent, citizen, student, or spouse.

Saying, “I don’t know” would be perfectly safe on the show, because it’s refreshing when politicians admit they don’t have an answer for everything.

Share Button

Democratic Party no longer Socially Liberal

Rachel Maddow questioned why Republicans are considered the “natural party of fiscal responsibility” when they don’t have a history of fiscal responsibility. Now I’m questioning why the Democratic Party is considered the natural party of being socially liberal for the same reason.

Are they really socially liberal, as in permitting freedom of action, or are they trying to shape society to what suits them?

The health care legislation is far from liberal, it is very authoritarian because it is mandatory. The only liberal part of health care bill is allowing an exemption for the Amish faith. Liberty-minded people object to the health care bill on moral principles too; maybe if we formed a religious organization we could get an exemption.

The President and many other Democrats recently denounced the Supreme Courts decision on free speech. Now Congresswoman (D) Donna Edwards is introducing a Constitutional Amendment to undo the Supreme Courts ruling.

‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.

‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’

Media corporations will have freedom of speech. I guess all other groups will have to become part of the press to be able to speak on political issues.

Democrats are now defending huge amounts of deficit spending. Selling future generations into slavery is a far cry from defending freedom. Deficit spending in reality is a poverty tax, because poor people don’t buy up treasury bills but have to pay them back.

Instead of defending free speech they are advocating restricting free speech and have become the party of censorship. Some Democratic party legislators are interested in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and others have proposed hate speech legislation.

In the past they would defend the minority view and now in power they defend majority rule, as in the majority of people voted for health care reform so its OK to force the minority who do not wish to participate to buy health insurance.

So tell my why again they consider themselves the natural party of being socially liberal?

Share Button

Ron Paul “WE NEED TO TAKE OUT THE CIA”

Once again Ron Paul demonstrates that being pro-liberty means pointing out any danger of unchecked power in government. Once again the far right will call Paul crazy because the CIA is the good kind of big government bureaucracy.

Share Button

Big Pharma Pushing Hard For Health Care Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5809Xe9-pg

Big pharmaceutical companies are donating heavily to Martha Coakley. If Coakley wins the special election to replace U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Tuesday, Coakley will vote for the passage of the health care reform bill. Pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be backing Coakley if they didn’t stand to gain from passage of health care reform.

Share Button