Taking Your Entitlements

I've read a lot of articles and watched many programs concerning the quest to cut Social Security (and Medicare). One question I have never seen answered is: Who gets the money? 

• Are they going to cancel it and then send each of us a check for all of the money we've put into SS? Somehow, I doubt it. 

• Are they going to provide us compounded interest for the years, possibly decades, they've had our money? I'm confident this won't happen. 

• Are they saying they want to cancel it and keep the money? This seems all too likely, to me. 

I will grant that Social Security was created a bit awkwardly. It is dependent on the next generation paying enough into it to afford the services for the previous generation (and that previous generation's payments created the nest egg for the entire program). This means that, as the Baby Boomers retire, the burden will be greater on the remaining workers (a smaller number of people). However, Boomers are working longer and dying quicker than other generations, so the end results likely won't be as ominous as some predict. And, once that bubble of people is through the system, it will go back to working as intended. We don't have to cancel the entire thing in order to survive the Boomer Bulge in SS.

Also, why do people allow certain politicians to make the word "entitlement" sound like a bad word without pushing back at them I mean, the term stems from the fact you paid into a program and are *entitled* to the benefits that the program provides. How is that a bad thing? We have plenty of other areas where we pay people in advance and then are entitled to services. For example, after paying every year into your insurance coverage, you are entitled to repairs on your car if you are in a collision. If you buy tickets in advance for a concert, movie, or play, you are entitled to a seat at the show when you arrive.

I'm not sure why certain people are okay with the threat of a few taking away access to things that everyone is entitled to, should they need it. Yes, you might not need child care, food stamps, or other forms of assistance now, but should that change, they are there for you because you (and millions of others) paid into thos programs. It's a "Just In Case" situation, with most. Social Security is not a JIC program, however; everyone is entitled to thier share based on how much they paid in and for how long. It is meant to supplement whatever retirement you have from your job, your 401k, your pension, or your savings.

I think we all need to ask ourselves, why do some politicians want to cancel these successful programs? What do they gain? Who really benefits from these actions?

None of the Above

In Brewster's Millions, Richard Pryor has to spend $30 million in 30 days in order to inherit $300 million. One of the things he does to spend the money is start a campaign to get people to vote None of the Above rather than choose between two bad choices.

In this year's presidential election, I sort of feel like Monty Brewster and want to ask people to vote None of the Above. But we know how that turned out, don't we? (Everyone thought it was just a smart political ploy and they started voting for Brewster instead.)

American politics are broken. The 12th Amendment basically ensures a two-party system. That being said, there is a precedence for a third (or more) parties possibly making a solid run and gaining the votes needed for a plurality.

This year, with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I'm praying for a third-party candidate run that I can get behind. It's not that I actively dislike Clinton; I'm sure she would make a decent President and would likely follow the successful path laid out by Obama. I am much less sure of Trump's ability to keep the country moving forward, as most of his speeches are in favor of regressive strategies. I'm also unsure, with the way that Congress decided to block Obama before he even took office, that the Republicans won't do the same to Clinton and the Democrats the same to Trump when one or the other is elected.

What I'm hoping for is some moderate Republican and Democrat to come together and run as a team. People with good ideas who can get the harder-line people from both sides to strive for compromise, rather than further fracturing the parties with extremist views.

Can you imagine how radical that thought would be? A Republican and Democrat on one ticket? The possibilities are incredible. It would show America, and other politicians, that compromise is possible and that we can agree on most things.

I guess that is what seems to be missing from these elections: the fact that most Americans agree on most things most of the time. Or, at least, that we can agree to disagree without it turning into something violent and extreme. It is possible for a life-long conservative to reach an agreement with a life-long liberal on a wide variety of topics. Neither will get all that they want, but each will get a little and each will give up a little and somewhere in the middle there will be a happy medium.

But, time is running out. A choice must be made. If you vote for Trump or Clinton, are you voting for the person you hate least? Is that a good way to vote? If you vote for a third party candidate now, are you just helping one side or the other to win or lose?

I've been doing my research, checking voting records and policy decisions, and trying to decide for whom I will vote. This year, more than any since I've been voting, is tough. But I have my ballot and I need to make a decision soon and get it in the mail. And hope and pray that it was the right one.

Too Long

The election cycle for President has become way too long. It is untenable and other countries' processes show that it doesn't need to be this long. Here are my thoughts on how to bring this under control:

1. Money.

All money raised by all candidates goes into a pot and is then distributed equally to all candidates, or the top 5 at least. In this way, money cannot unduly influence the results by having someone with a multiple million dollar war chest simply swamping someone with a much smaller war chest.

I also think that war chests should be limited, to limit the influence of money on politics. Not sure how to do that, though, except by above.

2. Primaries/Caucuses

First, pick a system and stick with it. Since there are laws against making a person show or tell their vote, this means that caucuses should be done away with (as they are a very public way of voting, where everyone in the room can see for which candidate you are choosing to vote). Secondly, all primaries should happen at the same time, across the nation, rather than over months. This gives no undo sway to any particular state and means the candidates have to travel to most states and get their message across equally.

Registered independent voters should get special ballots that show all candidates on it for a primary. 

3. Results

No results from any primary or election may be reported on or disclosed in any way prior to the last polling place closing. In this way, the east polls cannot influence the west's voting. Everyone can simply wait until the next day to see who won/lost.

4. Time

The election is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (note: the wording is complicated because the month can start on a Tuesday or later day). This means the election is held November 2 through 8th, depending on when that Tuesday falls. I don't see any reason, whatsoever, that an election cycle, from declaring, to primaries, to DNCC/RNCC, to election, needs to last longer than six months. So, candidates must declare no later than May 1st. The primaries should be held two months later, in July, and the winning candidates would have four months to debate, set their agendas and platforms, and campaign.

5. Voting

The act of voting needs to be made more simple, but also as error-, fraud-, and influence-free as possible. Voting via the internet is an absolute requirement. I mean, if you can do your taxes online, you should be able to vote online. No matter how they vote, all voters should get a physical copy of their results in case of suspected fraud, by which they can verify who they voted for. For example, if you vote online, you should receive an automated email response that shows "These are the candidates and ballot measures you voted FOR:" and a list. If fraud is suspected, the voting commission can ask the voters in that area for their confirmations, make a copy, and recount the votes or check the results. This should happen with electronic devices at polling stations, or manual processes, as well.

6. Gerrymandering

We need to change the laws to do away with gerrymandering. By changing the district shapes and locations, parties have made it almost impossible for an incumbent not to get re-elected. We need politicians to have to sway voters of all stripes, so their districts should have a good mix of all parties in it. This moves everyone back toward the middle, rather than polarizing, and means we have a Congress and other offices that can work together, rather than a divisive group of far right or far left people who refuse to work together. Compromise is possible. It also means you may have a Democrat win a district that is predominantly conservative, and his/her message and voting record will have to reflect the population and the will of the people he/she is representing, rather than her own politics.

I think these are a good first step toward making the election cycle shorter and more fair. It makes people running for office have to actually campaign and it levels the playing field between all the candidates. I think you would also see the general public invest more of their time, effort, and interest in the election process, and would see a commensurate gain in voters each cycle. There may be more ideas that can be added that would further tighten up the election process. I'll add more as I hear, or think of them.

Do Your Damn Job

If you or I did not do our job regularly and with unconcealed malice our bosses would fire us. Well, guess what? The Republicans in Congress have been avoiding their jobs for almost 8 years now. When "forced" to do their jobs, they have, instead, done their best to filibuster anything that isn't theirs, or push only their agenda. Congress has the worst record of any Congress ever during Obama's presidency.

Not only that, but John Boehner actually said he was going to urge obstructionism when Obama was elected. Meaning, before Obama had even suggested a single piece of legislature, they said they were not going to do their job. They said they were going to obstruct what did get written and put up for a vote. It's the same as you being hired and vocally proclaiming you aren't going to work, and then setting about doing anything but working right in front of your boss. I'm not sure your boss would like that, and I doubt you would hang around very long.

However, the Republicans have gerrymandered districts such that it is nearly impossible for them not to get re-elected. Congress currently has a slightly above 90% incumbency winning record, meaning once someone gets into Congress, it is a virtual lock they will get re-elected year in and year out. This leads to the contentious nature of Congress's dealings these days, as there isn't the proper amount of turnover and new faces and fresh ideas.

Obama just announced his Supreme Court nominee. Since he's still President for 10 months, the Congress has a legal obligation to hear the appointee and make a decision. The Republicans continue to believe Obama shouldn't (although there are plenty of precedents that this has happened before and Congress acted accordingly), and claim that they will delay the nomination until he's out of office so the next President can nominate someone... because they assume the next President will be a Republican.

If they do this, I feel President Obama should go on a very public TV campaign and tell the American people directly that Congress, and in particular the Republicans, are not doing their job. He should tell the American public to fire their representatives and hire new ones who will do their job. People who bring those fresh faces and fresh ideas to Congress as a whole.

The American public seems to have forgotten that Congress serves at the public's behest. The public can vote them out and change the entire course of the country by doing so. Right now, Congress (on both sides of the aisle, frankly) think they are safe and secure. That they have the public under their thumb and neutered. All it takes is voting to change this. All it takes is picking any new name, anyone who hasn't been to Congress before, and voting them into office. That's it. It's entirely in our hands.

The other thing we can do is force Congress to create and pass term limits on Senators and Representatives. I strongly suggest no more than 2 full terms plus the conclusion of another person's term (in the case of someone being forced out or dying while in office). This would get the turnover going that we need in Congress. This would make those in Congress to have to work with new people, to vote based on conscience and the people's will, rather than on party politics.

It's in our hands. Let's do something about it.

Quiet

Normally, I post a lot about politics here. I find stupid things the American government is doing/has done and I mock it, explain it, reason for or against it. I've been strangely quiet during this election cycle because I simply cannot believe what is going on.

The Republican process has been an unmitigated disaster. Few of the 14 people are remotely interested in being presidential, they just want to be the President. Carly Fiorina pretty much staked her entire campaign on false information, and couldn't change it when that information was proven, categorically and unequivocally, false. Jeb Bush would seem like a lock, but negative name recognition and a poorly run campaign have done him in. I don't know how Ben Carson stayed so high in the polls for so long; the man is a doctor who, apparently, doesn't understand how the human body works and lies about his past. Chris Christie? The people in his own state don't like him, how is he going to convince the rest of the country to vote for him? Cruz? Please. The guy sways so hard with the prevailing Republican wind that it is hard to figure out what he's really for or against. Rubio doesn't know how to do his job nor does he understand that voting is a key component of that job. And Trump? Don't even get me started. He offends women, offends every race, offends most religions, has no clue how to be inoffensive, and is a bloviating blowhard. Can you image that man trying to negotiate with the leaders of any other nation?

On the Democrats side, it has been calmer. Only four candidates started out, but only two really mattered. Clinton's campaign may wind up derailing itself due to the entire email server fiasco. She also took Sanders lightly until he came up and punched her in the face, politically speaking, with a virtual tie in the first caucus. His brand of social democracy has a lot of people on his side, mostly youths, and harkens back to the great social democrats of the past, like FDR. What happens if Hillary is convicted of a crime here? Can she still run for office? Could she be the first President to serve office while in prison? Who knows. Of course, there are some who are coming out and saying what she did was not unusual, like Colin Powell. It seems to be much ado about nothing, but we'll see.

As an unaffiliated voter who swings right on some topics and left on others, I literally have no clue who I might vote for. Of the presumptive nominees, I see myself voting for None of the Above. But that would be throwing away my vote, so I'll have to do some heavy research and see who has the better voting record (since either side will lie and claim they are for/against something; you have to look at their actual voting record (or lack of it, in Rubio's case) to see what they really do) on topics I find important.

And I won't even get started on the Iowa caucus, where hand-writing the person's name on a slip of paper, or standing in groups in an auditorium, seems to be the "height" of political savvy. If I was Sanders, in particular, I would want a recount with how close that was. The news I watched showed people fumbling about, hand-counting, and flipping coins to decide winners. This is absurd.

So, just know that my silence is speaking volumes -- when normally I would be explaining, arguing, or otherwise teaching about the topics, the fact that I'm so dumbstruck with what is going on that I have nothing to say, says a lot.

Congress Must Go!

"... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...".

I think it is just about time for us to abolish Congress, both House and Senate, and start over. We need to enact laws that limit the amount of money these positions can accrue while in office, make sure existing laws apply to Congress equally, and to limit the amount of time that one can spend in Congress.

Currently, Congress refuses to work together or with other parts of the executive branch (i.e., the office of the President); refuses to take a pay cut during one of the most dire economic hardships our country has faced; and refuses to hold themselves accountable to themselves or to the American people who, through their votes, have issued directives on what direction and what policies they want to see enacted. It is time for a new revolution where we evict these people from office and, through careful consideration, replace them with people who will put America and Americans first, rather than their own political power and gain.

It is nearly impossible to remove a Congressman from office once they are elected. Congressmen themselves are supposed to monitor each other and evict those who are failing to do their duty. Yet we have a number of Congressmen who rarely show up for votes, often use insider information to accrue wealth and power, and pervert the laws of this great land to their own political, personal, and religious ends. In any other aspect of American life, if you do not do your job, you illegally use your knowledge to profit, and you go against the precepts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you are held accountable and removed from your position and put in jail. Congress should not be above these laws. We need new rules and laws that allow outside forces to begin the process of expulsion from Congress, as who can trust Congress to govern themselves?

We need to hold Congress accountable for enacting legislation, too. We need to limit the riders and extraneous information that can be added to a law (or give the President back the power of line-item veto so that the extraneous riders and such can be removed and the original bill can be passed). And we need to restrict the amount of time that a Congressman is in office so that they must leave politics and live by the laws they have established.

I have detailed my suggestions for Congressional Reform in previous posts. I am open to debate, but think these five rules are a good first step in reforming politics in general and Congress in particular. I might add a rule that Congressional salaries and/or jobs are tied to passing and having a balanced Federal budget; no Federal budget, no job (or, at least, no money). From here, we can get the government moving once more toward respecting America and Americans.

It is time for a new revolution.

Fiscal Cliffs

Maybe we should fall off the upcoming Fiscal Cliff, as they are calling it. This would dramatically cut many services (including the military) and would raise taxes on everyone. It would, in many ways, solve many of America's current financial issues. It would also, maybe, finally convince people to demand reform from their career politicians.

From the Great Depression until the 1980s, taxes were much, much higher than they are now, both income and capital gains taxes. The rich, especially, had high taxes. And, during this time of really high taxes, America's economy grew like never before, the middle class grew, and we became the biggest economy in the world. During this time, job growth was phenomenal, the social contract between businesses, the government, and the people was strong. Prosperity ensued.

In the last thirty years of constant tax breaks, career politicians, and a steadily widening gap between the Republicans and Democrats, we have seen our economy falter, we've seen the social contract break down and disappear, and we've seen businesses take their business overseas. We've seen two really bad recessions and multiple depressions in the economy. We have seen an increase in our debt to astronomic proportions.

President Obama is following the Republican playbook for fixing the economy. He has taken a whole lot of the New Deal (yes, my history-minded friends, this was introduced by FDR, a Democrat. However, history shows us that it is made up of almost entirely ideas and plans first espoused by Herbert Hoover, a Republican) and quite a bit from Reagan-omics from the early 1980s. There is very little new in Mr. Obama's plan, actually. Yet today's Republicans say it is "too Democratic," "too Liberal," and "too Socialist." Yes, the Republican plan Mr. Obama is following is too "not-Republican."

In addition, the Republicans have finally put forth a plan -- which is identical in all ways to the plan they put into the Fiscal Cliff only they have removed the "take it from the military" part and moved those cuts entirely to entitlement areas. The numbers and figures stay the same. Or, in other words, the current Republicans have done NOTHING NEW and still think the government can somehow save itself by not bringing in any more money and by cutting more and more, especially in areas outside of the military (the singles biggest spending area of the US Government, by the way, and larger than the next 10 countries spend on military combined). Well, their plan saves about $1.4 trillion a year out of a debt at $14 trillion. Mr. Obama's plan, which includes both cuts and tax increases on the richest folks, would equal a difference of about $4.4 trillion a year.

There are approximately 315 million people in American. Of that, approximately half are workers who pay taxes of some sort. From the Great Depression through to the mid-1990s or so, the greatest amount of wealth in America was in the hands of the middle class. They made up the biggest majority of people, too. So, you had 100 million or so people paying a small percentage of taxes, but it was spread out over so many people that it allowed the US government to bring in a huge sum of money to fund everything. Basically, approximately 80 percent of the wealth was in the hands of 80 percent of people. This had the strange effect of making the rich richer. It also had the strange effect of making the poor less poor, as they had more and more opportunities to rise into the middle class. Win-win-win.

While it is very hard to compare decades, most economists seem to agree that from the late 1970s through to today, the richest percentage of people grew their incomes by close to 300% while the middle class grew theirs by approximately 40%. By all accounts, now approximately 85% of all the wealth in America is in the hands of approximately 20% of the population. Approximately 35% of that wealth is in the hands of only 1% of the population. From what I'm gathering, it looks to be about 4 million people in America make $200,000 or more.

For perspective, the population of America was about 225 million in 1980. That means approximately 110 million people paying taxes (generally speaking, you take approximately 50% of the total population as active workers, with 50% being retired, too young, or out of work). So, the majority of wealth (about 80%) was in 88 million people's hands. Today, there are approximately 315 million people in America. About 158 million people paying taxes. Of those, 85% of the wealth is consolidated in approximately 31.6 million people. That means 15% of the wealth is spread out over 126 million people.

Taxation works by a simple premise: you go where the money is. The middle class, while having more people, now has only 15% of the money. So the bulk of the money is with a smaller percentage of people, who have a much, much higher percentage of the wealth.

Let's put it in perspective with some static examples.

Pre-1990s taxation scheme

1000 people have jobs, make money. The Government needs $10,000 to fund everything.

(Note: Population number based on who has the wealth. Per estimates above, 80% of the wealth was in middle class, approximately 10% in upper class, and approximately 10% (total) in lower class. Wealthiest taxed more, middle class taxed a reasonable amount, and lower class taxed less, or not all. Used as an example only.)

• 100 (Upper class): Taxed $17.50/each ($1,750)
• 800 (Middle class): Taxed $10/each ($8,000)
• 50 (Lower class, but still taxable people): Taxed $5/each ($250)
• 50 (Lower class, but under the taxable minimum): Taxed $0/each

So, the sum total is that the government needs $10,000 and they easily make it, with no one side being taxed "too much." Everyone is happy and the economy grows/prospers.

Post-1990 taxation scheme

1000 people have jobs, make money. The Government needs $10,000 to fund everything.

(Note: Population based on who has the wealth. Per estimates above, approximately 85% of wealth is in upper class, approximately 15% is in the middle and lower classes. Wealthiest taxed less than middle class, middle class taxed at same "reasonable" rate even though their wealth has stayed the same or declined, lower classes taxed about the the same. Used as an example only.)

• 850 (Upper class): Taxed $7.50/each ($6,375)
• 100 (Middle class): Taxed $10/each ($1,000)
• 25 (Lower class): Taxed $5/each ($125)
• 25 (Lower class, below minimums): Taxed $0/each ($0)

The government needs $10,000 and is bringing in a total of $7,500. It is no wonder the government is in debt. Every year, the government is short $2,500 for all services rendered. Cutting what you fund may work, but there are certain minimums that the population won't let the government go below and there are certain requirements, like military, where cuts can be hazardous.

One obvious way to get that number up is to find where the money is and make those with the majority of the money pay more. Let's run those number again, only this time we'll break out the Upper Class and give them higher tax rates.

Suggested taxation scheme

1000 people have jobs, make money. The Government needs $10,000 to fund everything.

(Note: Population based on who has the wealth. Per estimates above, approximately 85% of wealth is in upper class, approximately 15% is in the middle and lower classes. Wealthiest taxed more than middle class, middle class taxed at a lower "reasonable" rate because their wealth has stayed the same or declined, lower classes taxed about the the same. Used as an example only.)

• 350 (Highest Upper class ($1 million or more)): Taxed $17.50/each ($6,125)
• 500 (Lower Upper class $200,000 to $1 million)): Taxed $15.00/each ($7,500)
• 100 (Middle class): Taxed 7.50/each ($750)
• 25 (Lower class): Taxed $5/each ($125)
• 25 (Lower class, below minimums): Taxed $0/each ($0)

The government needs $10,000 and is bringing in a total of $14,500. They went where the money was. Since there were fewer physical people, they had to raise the tax rates per-person, but not an unreasonable amount compared to the income they have. And the government suddenly has a surplus of money, and all current project, programs, and other spending (like military) need not be cut at all. And, the government could start paying back the loans to other countries it has made, bringing the deficit down quickly.

(Note: I grant that I used static population numbers and static government spending/need numbers, and that is unrealistic for the eras in question. The point is made, however, that taxation needs to go where the money is, and pay a percentage based on the population who has that money. Also, note that I put the taxation amounts for the richest people to at or below the amount they were being taxed in the first example.)

I AM NOT ADVOCATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY RAISE TAXES WITHOUT ALSO CUTTING PROGRAMS. There is a lot of waste in the American government and we should cut military spending by at least 25%, we should cut all duplicated programs and jobs, we should eliminate all excess buildings, we should put in place requirements that the government not pay on any contracts that are overdue or over-budget. There are a lot of places left where cuts can go.

Now, is taxation this simple? Of course not. But simple logic can be used to figure out that the Republican's plan by itself simply cannot work. As long as the wealth is in the hands of a few, those few have to pay more in taxes or we will always run at a deficit. Look to your own house: you have a finite amount of money coming in and you have certain things you must pay for (rent/mortgage, car, gas, utilities) in order to keep that job and stay alive. You can cut everything else but it will not change the amount coming in or the amount you need to spend on the bare minimums. At some point, if you want to get out of debt, you have to get a second job, a pay raise, or a bonus of some sort. In other words, you have to bring more money in. When people are making the choices between medications or food, or food and rent, there are serious issues. You've cut all you can cut.

If you want the economy to turn around, you need to give the majority of people money to spend, you need to tax where the money is, and you need to cut out all frivolous and unnecessary spending. I think I have shown that the middle class has the majority of people but they simply do not have the wealth to spend any more. I think I have shown that the minority who has the wealth are where taxes should be increased. The only thing left, really, is deciding what should be cut and what cannot be cut. And there are plenty of places for the Republicans and Democrats to fight over in this area.

But, to make this long story only slightly longer, we can and should vote out of office those politicians, like Mr. Boehner and his cronies, who are adamantly obfuscating and obstructing this process. We need to hear from the silent majority of people who can see the simple logic of the facts as I've presented them, and insist our politicians do what we want them to do. Now.

(End Note: All of the percentages and figures I used, except for my simple examples, were taking from a variety of places both right- and left-wing on the internet. The data is easy to find and corroborate/correlate. Because of this, I did not link to the specific sites or locations.)

Not Out of the Woods Yet

America voted and America chose. They re-elected President Obama to a second term. He even has the popular vote, so a (small) majority of Americans prefer his policies and visions to the policies and vision of his election rival. However, this does not mean that we are 'out of the woods' by any means. The President has a vision, sure, but he so far during the campaign has not given specifics. Neither has his opposition. This election cycle was incredibly devoid of specifics, of plans, of details that the public can use to keep the President-elect on topic and judge his overall course and value as president.

When Mr. Obama was elected to his first term, he spoke much more specifically about what he would do and how he would do it. Few people realize this, but he got more of his bills passed through Congress than any previous President during his first two years. Were they all winners? No, of course not. But he was trying to overcome the mess left to him (and the American people) and he was trying to follow the plans and specifics he provided during his campaign and during his first speech as President.

The American public, disenfranchised with how long the recovery was taking and some of the antics of the Democrat-controlled Congress, rebelled in 2010 and gave the House to the Republicans. Shortly thereafter, John Boehner famously said that the House of Representatives would not pass any bill that the Republicans thought would help Mr. Obama get re-elected. And they were good to their word. They filibustered and stopped every bill designed to get the American public back to work, even if it hurt their own constituents and the American public in general. They refused to help every single time Mr. Obama asked for bipartisanship, and then blamed the style and content of the bills for not being bipartisan. They designed bills using terms and conditions that were abhorrent to the Democrats and without asking for Democratic buy-in or assistance simply so that the Democrats or the President would stop or veto them, and then complained that everything they did was stymied by the President (even if the Senate was what stopped the bill).

In the end, however, their plan failed and Mr. Obama has been re-elected. This failure is, ironically, mostly on them for what they said (anti-woman, anti-GLBT, racist campaigns and comments) and what they did not do (all the filibustering and bill denials). What I wonder now is, will they take the President up on his desire to work with them to make bills and laws that are bipartisan and compromise, or will they continue the tactic of hurting all of America? Will the Democrats work harder and smarter to try to get Republican assistance and buy-in on the vision that Mr. Obama will, hopefully, be sharing with us soon? We do not know if any of the President's bills would have been successful, but we know for certain that having nothing continues to hurt America. Will they step to the plate and help out?

American politics have become so fractured, so partisan, so divisive that I am not sure that any president can get much done unless his party has a majority in Congress. And this, simply put, is not American. America is all about compromise. I am certain that I could sit in a room with people on the far right and far left and moderate nearly any topic to a compromise. Will either be totally happy with the results? No. But will we have a work-able solution that gives a little to both sides while minimizing the negatives to both sides? Yes. If I can do that, why can't our elected officials?

As I said, we are not out of the woods yet. The public has spoken and the President was re-elected. But he still has a Republican House to contend with and the antipathy of the Republican party to overcome. But, here's the thing: We control both. If we educate ourselves on the policies and bills, if we contact and hold accountable our elected officials, they WILL do what we want, or we can throw them out of office and get people who will. WE HAVE THE POWER. Let's use it to make the Republicans and Democrats work together, compromise, and right this ship. Let's find a way out of these woods and back to a place where America is great and its people are powerful.

We CAN do it.

Get Low

I don't have much to post today except that the Presidential race this year may be one of the dirtiest we've ever seen. I'm already shocked and surprised at the lies and acid that are being slung about by both parties. I'd like to reiterate that I think lying in political ads and speeches should be illegal and the party that is found guilty of it should be automatically disqualified from the race.

And I am so tired of only hearing the far right and far left talk. We need moderation, we need consensus, and we need to work together to get America back on track. Why is it when my educated friends from the far left and right get together, we can agree on middle ground and reach consensus on most every issue, yet the country's official politicians can't do that to save their lives?