Imagine I am the government

I've been told that "ANY DEFICIT is irresponsible fiscal policy" and that Bush Sr. had it right by raising taxes. Ha, how about cutting spending?

Who can disagree with the first part? Yet I know that Bush Sr. could have handled it differently with his veto pen. He should have vetoed all of the big spending coming from Congress. That's why he was fired. By raising taxes, he made it easy for Clinton to get elected, on a promise of lowering taxes during his campaign, to which he also reneged, and raised taxes, thus propelling the R's to power in '94.

This is the big point: Any individual knows, who has their own budget, that they way to fix budget problems is by tightening belts. You can't force your employer to give you a pay raise. Yet that is exactly what government does. It forces pay raises through tax increases, rather than cutting budgets. Ridiculous!

Here is a better analogy:

Imagine I am the government.

Imagine I had the power of the IRS to confiscate without remorse, and without possible resistance. I tell my boss that because of 'investments' (meaning government spending) I will be raising taxes (my salary). The boss says he can't raise my salary because the company is already paying me as much as it can without going bankrupt, but I enforce my rule using force (IRS). The company pays up because it doesn't want to go to jail.

Voila, I have a pay raise every year, even though I don't deserve it. And that pay raise is much more than the inflation rate, and much more than the average pay raise of the average American. And do I spend it wisely? No, I spend it on big inefficient bureaucracies, and I don't tighten my belt at all, no need, I'm the government, and I've got all the force I want. Oh, and I have the media on my side, to convince the electorate that my form of government is good for them, so that they keep voting for me. Oh, did I forget to mention that I only force the highest paid, most productive companies to pay me my salary? Those other dopey companies that don't produce very well, well I just leave them alone so that they can continue to vote for me, even though they don't pay my salary.

Sound fair?

Help Democrats Get Elected Act of 2002

Here is an interesting sequence of events...

In a few counties of Florida in 2000, a bunch of dumb people didn't know how to punch chads. They claimed they were disenfranchised, right? Florida's problem, right? No...

The Feds after the 2000 Florida fiasco invented a new law that all voting machines must be electronic. So PA decided to go all electronic, but they didn't have a referendum, which, strictly according to our state law they needed. It went to court early this year. The court ignored the referendum argument and said that PA must go forward because of the federal law. So every county had to come up with their own solution, rather than it being a statewide uniform solution. Attached are several letters to the editor written to local newspapers complaining about the new machines. My main complaint then was that I don't like the loss of tactile feedback, and that this new electronic mechanism is fraught with new ways for election tinkering.

Take a look at the Help America Vote Act: (should be called, Help Democrats Get Elected Act)

Click on this link, and see who the parent company is (can anyone say Hugo Chavez)

Then check out the Venezuelan Recall Referendum of 2004

Finally, the Democrats win by a landslide in PA in 2006

Is anyone beginning to get a little skeptical yet?

Leave us alone
Saturday, February 25, 2006

Why does our so-called compassionate federal government feel compelled to continue to force its one-size-fits-all electronic-voting mandate on everyone?

The feds are going to sue to overturn a Commonwealth Court ruling that says Westmoreland County voters must approve any new voting machines ("Feds plan ballot lawsuit," Feb. 23 and TribLIVE.com).

We do have our own state Constitution, and we choose to listen to our own drummer rather than a ludicrous federal mandate, based on a
knee-jerk reaction in Florida's vote-counting fiasco in 2000.

What is so wrong with letting each state determine its own course? The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

We already have perfectly suitable levered machines with laudable tactile feedback that have been used ever since I started voting in 1976.

Why not simply let Florida solve its own problems?

I say to the feds: Leave us alone.

Machine vote
Friday, March 3, 2006

Government of the people, by the people, for the people has finally perished from the earth ("Pa. high court clears way for Westmoreland electronic voting," TribLIVE.com, March 2).

In response to hanging chads in Florida, we the people of Pennsylvania don't get to vote on our own form voting machines. It was determined for us, by the federal Congress, the county and finally, our state Supreme Court.

Good luck to all us voters trying to figure out touch screens (with fingerprints all over them?). Has anyone even mentioned the likelihood of new forms of fraud with electronic voting?

Electronic Voting Machines

Attention.. This is why the election went the way it went. Mr. Punky Kitten was able to hack into the votronic web site and download the source code for the new electronic voting machines. This simulation uses the actual control algorithm used in our PA voting machines:

Vote for PA candidates, vote early, vote often!

The source

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Are there sour grapes because the Democrats took over control of congress? Perhaps.. Will the D's tax and spend? Likely. Is it hard to take back control because of the power of incumbency: indubitably. That's why an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But that prevention wasn't with the campaign, but with the spending habits of the Republicans going back 6 years. They had it within their power to cut spending and balance budgets, and chose not to do so. That was their mistake.

How about taxation? It's not how much a person owns, but how much they make that drives the economy, and thus, gets taxed (except for some greedy D's who want to tax what you own as well with so-called 'imputed income' which is an invented income based on the value of your house).

My concerns for the future are with respect to the economy, because I want to continue to be gainfully employed, and I want the nation to do well economically. Think about an individual who makes $15K a year. What will happen if the D's raise the minimum wage. Who will suffer first when that happens. Many of the poorest among us will suffer because when squeezed, companies respond first by laying off employees because they can't afford to employ, say 100 employees at $9/hour, but they could when it was $6/hour. So perhaps some 20 employees loose their job because of the very thing that the D's say will help people. Ha. Tell that to those 20 dopes who voted D and will be out of a job. Raising the minimum wage appreciably has also been shown to cause inflation, because it bumps everyone's salary up along the line. And one more item: when they lay off those 20 people, the remaining 80 are forced to work harder to keep their jobs; those 80 have more stress and need more health care, it's a vicious spiraling circle. A better solution is to let the free market take care of itself, without government mandates. People will eventually gain skills that make them more valuable to employers, and will move up the ladder.

Or else consider the Alternative Minimum Tax which will kick in to middle class people like me next year. If the D's don't push the definition of 'rich' to a number which really reflects 'rich' then that will cause people like me and all the rest of us who make $42K-single / $62K-married to pay another $2K to the government next year. That means that we all have that much less money to spend in the economy. That means a probable recession. That's incentive enough for the D's to fix that overlooked item which kept coming up in congressional debates all this year but never got passed into law.

The child deduction is another thing, which, a few don't necessarily like it or think it is fair, but it is supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Take that away and there will be a big outcry: a platform the R's may run on to try to regain congress in 2 or 4 years down the road. And a good platform for Giuliani in his run for president. If people really want fairness, instead of griping about this deduction or that, we should embrace the one truly fair tax: The FairTax!

In a way I hope the D's do act as their leftist base wants them to, and tax us all more: that will give the R's a chance of regaining the congress down the road. But that is sour grapes talking again. Logic dictates that they really should keep taxes as they are and they should spend less. But we all know that the D's and R's both like to spend other peoples money as if it grew on trees. What chance is there that the D's will spend less than the R's now that they have control: I give that thought about the same chance as the idea that a snake could walk.

How about the environment? Without a strong economy, the first thing to suffer will be the environment, just look at third world countries. I've heard horrible stories about their poor economies, and the resultant pollution. The clear-cutting of trees is overwhelmingly a problem in these countries. There goes one possible solution for global warming.

I am especially concerned about the national debt. The only difference between myself and the Democrats is how to remedy the problem. The D's will advocate more taxes to relieve debt. I advocate two things: Keep taxes as they are which actually grows the economy; and secondly: cut government spending: cut entitlement growth, cut unnecessary programs, cut earmarks, cut pork, cut back on the department of Homeland Security and other wasteful departments, cut government growth down the line; and yes, cut the military too.

Now that the D's are in power, my current position is that we need to get out of Iraq in a slow withdrawal. I just hope that the Iraqis are able to defend themselves from their own insurgents. Hope is not a bad thing. I'm looking at the long term situation. If the cost of this so-called war is great now, just think how much it would cost if the insurgents take back control. An ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure.

Surprise! Your president's a Sea Urchin

So, I suppose Bush has more in common with a Sea Urchin than do Liberals..

- He has no spine or backbone: (He is caving in to ultra-leftist Nancy Pelosi).
- According to the left, his IQ is about equivalent to the Sea Urchin.
- He sort of looks like one too.

Perhaps the first bill passed by the new congress can be the "DNA Sequencing of George W. Bush's Genome Reconciliation Act of 2007" Then they can compare that genome to that of the Sea Urchin. Perhaps ultimately, new drugs can be developed for combating human infectious diseases and ills like conservatism, and even change their voting habits.

Surprise! Your [president's] Cousin's a Sea Urchin. Meet your new evolutionary cousin, the sea urchin. By analyzing the newly sequenced genome of the spineless creature, an international team of scientists found just how much we have in common with them.

And the winner is... The media.

Now that the votes are in, does anyone suspect that the Democrats fixed the results? I'm not certain myself. Probably not in PA, but some of those close races in other states may have been tampered with. I'll bet if it went the other way you'd year all kinds of howling and shrieks from the D's.

Well the big winner last night was not the people, nor the Democrats.... It was the media. They managed to spin a good economy into a bad one. And they spun the Iraq reconstruction into a bad war. I hope the media is proud of itself. I personally find the whole thing disgusting. That's not democracy. That's not liberty. That's control. That's a form of tyranny that the founding fathers never reckoned for.

There is bad news for the D's right off the bat. I read two days ago in the paper that neither party has addressed the Alternative Minimum Tax yet. Unless they do, and pronto, that will really affect the economy adversely. The funny thing is, the R's are the ones who didn't deal with it, and the exemption for middle class folks who make as little as 40K single or 60K married will expire this December, and guess what, the D's will take the blame, because they now hold the house of reps. Ha. Actually a tax increase of at least $2,390, according to the article, is nothing to laugh at.

An exemption that limits the number of high-income taxpayers who pay the Alternative Minimum Tax expires at the end of this year. That means an estimated 19.2 million additional taxpayers will lose all or part of their deductions for mortgage interest and local property taxes — and increase their tax bills by an average of about $2,390. To limit the number of taxpayers who are subject to the AMT, current law exempts the first $42,500 of income earned by an individual and $62,550 claimed on a joint return. Without a renewal, the exemptions will be lower.

Ignore the False Media Exit Polls

But there is no Joy in Mudville

Tomorrow we will know for sure, who has struck out. Will it be the mighty Casey? Or will it be the people of Pennsylvania? For if the mighty Casey wins, we, the people will lose.

Casey at the Bat
by Ernest L. Thayer 1888

The outlook wasn't brilliant for the
  Mudville  nine that day,
The score stood four to two, with but
  one inning more to play.
And then when Cooney died at first,
  and Barrows did the same,
A pall-like silence fell upon the
  patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to go in
  deep despair.
The rest clung to that hope which
  springs eternal in the human breast.
They thought, "if only Casey could
  but get a whack at that.
We'd put up even money now, with
  Casey at the bat."

But Flynn preceded Casey, as did
  also Jimmy Blake;
and the former was a hoodoo, while
  the latter was a cake.
So upon that stricken multitude,
  grim melancholy sat;
for there seemed but little chance
  of Casey getting to the bat.

But Flynn let drive a single, to
  the wonderment of all.
And Blake, the much despised,
  tore the cover off the ball.
And when the dust had lifted,
  and men saw what had occurred,
there was Jimmy safe at second
  and Flynn a-hugging third.

Then from five thousand throats
  and more there rose a lusty yell;
it rumbled through the valley,
  it rattled in the dell;
it pounded through on the mountain
  and recoiled upon the flat;
for Casey, mighty Casey,
  was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Casey's manner
  as he stepped into his place,
there was pride in Casey's bearing
  and a smile lit Casey's face.
And when, responding to the cheers,
  he lightly doffed his hat,
no stranger in the crowd could
  doubt t'was Casey at the bat.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as
  he rubbed his hands with dirt.
Five thousand tongues applauded
  when he wiped them on his shirt.
Then, while the writhing pitcher
  ground the ball into his hip,
defiance flashed in Casey's eye,
  a sneer curled Casey's lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere
  came hurtling through the air,
and Casey stood a-watching it in
  haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the
  ball unheeded sped --
"That ain't my style," said Casey.
  "Strike one!" the umpire said.

From the benches, black with people,
  there went up a muffled roar,
like the beating of the storm waves
  on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill him! Kill the umpire!" shouted
  someone on the stand,
and it's likely they'd have killed
  him had not Casey raised his hand.

With a smile of Christian charity,
  great Casey's visage shone,
he stilled the rising tumult,
  he bade the game go on.
He signaled to the pitcher, and
  once more the dun sphere flew,
but Casey still ignored it, and
  the umpire said, "Strike two!"

"Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands,
  and echo answered "Fraud!"
But one scornful look from Casey
  and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold,
  they saw his muscles strain,
and they knew that Casey wouldn't
  let that ball go by again.

The sneer has fled from Casey's lip,
  the teeth are clenched in hate.
He pounds, with cruel violence,
  his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball,
  and now he lets it go,
and now the air is shattered by
  the force of Casey's blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land
  the sun is shining bright.
The band is playing somewhere, and
  somewhere hearts are light.
And, somewhere men are laughing,
  and little children shout,
but there is no joy in Mudville -
  mighty Casey has struck out.

Casey defends Kerry in Allentown

How can anyone defend the indefensible. How does Casey justify the arroganance of John Kerry? Kerry didn't even really apologize (except online), and it certainly wasn't sincere.

ar‧ro‧gance  /ˈærəgəns/ –noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
See also: John Kerry

Fears for the future

This is a dangerous statement by Mr. Berners-Lee. If you read behind the lines, what he is really saying is that we need to suppress free speech, at least that is what the 'ends' to his 'means' will be. Liberty will be sacrificed if we put holds on the internet or the www in any way.

I too fear for the future: I believe it will be so socialist in nature, that the individualist will be squelched completely. Read the story "Anthem" by Ayn Rand: It provides a good look at our future, one that future generations will experience, I fear.

Web inventor fears for the future
Sir Tim Berners-Lee is concerned about the future of the web.

The British developer of the world wide web says he is worried about the way it could be used to spread misinformation and "undemocratic forces".

Halp Us Jon Carry - We R Stuck Hear N Irak