Red vs Blue- Failure on Both Sides

Another day passes and the government is still shutdown. You have one side that claims they just want to talk. You have another that refuses to talk. Both sides claim to want to end the shutdown. Neither is making a real move to do so. Both sides are more concerned with a "political victory" than doing an actual thing about the shutdown.

To their credit, the House GOP has passed bills to fund parts of the government. The Senate has rejected the very notion. Shame goes to both sides. I like to think that I fall in the direct middle of this argument. Both sides are wrong for various reasons. They are like children arguing over building a sandcastle. Both sides want it built, but they can't decide if it is going to have a moat or not, so they aren't going to build the castle at all. It is far better to have wanted and never created than to create and not have exactly what you were planning on, right?

The main grip for the GOP seems to be the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Did anyone else notice that Democrats (including the President) who once embraced the "Obamacare" moniker have reverted back to referring to the law by its legal name? The ACA is a flawed law. The website has failed to live up to expectation and a lot of people are seeing their premiums go up. The line from the President about keeping your doctor/insurance has been proven blatantly false. The law is so messed up that the President has taken it upon himself to make changes to the law, circumventing the Constitution. My disagreement with the law aside, the GOP is going about the repeal of it in a manner that is to the detriment of this country.

Instead of shutting down the government, why not sue the Obama administration over his illegal changing of the laws? We know that the Justice Department, ran by Obama besty Eric Holder isn't going to file the appropriate paperwork it should in light of the disregard for the Constitution, but that shouldn't stop the House. They could impeach the President for his changing of the law unilaterally. I am not talking about moving to remove him from office. I am just suggesting they impeach him regarding this and get the original law restored for the LONG TERM victory of having the law repealed, following the proper, legal channels; not shutting down the US government and making the United States a laughing stock on the international scene.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are committing just as much jackassery. Refusing to fund parts of the government for fear that the GOP will look like saviors is comparable to not having a birthday party for your child because you don't like cake. The GOP will not get out of this looking pretty (neither will the GOP) just like the kids at a cake-free birthday party won't be licking frosting off of a knife. Another place where the Dems get this wrong is with the refusal to delay the individual mandate in the ACA for individuals. If this law is so great, why the need for the mandate? Because without it, young people won't buy in and the law needs those young people to pay for the older people. Nothing is free, folks. Ignorant people claiming that the ACA makes insurance affordable for all are blind to the truth. It is something learned in high school level Economics- TINSTAFL.

Politicians on both sides alienate the American people when they refuse to repeal the exemptions to Congress under the ACA. While their are some GOP members that publicly call for the removal of such exemptions, some of them do it only because they know that such a repeal will never pass the Senate. It makes me sick.

If I had my way, the ACA would be stripped permanently of the individual mandate as well as corporate mandates. Their can be tax incentives for corporations to provide insurance for employees (didn't that exist prior to ACA). Provide tax breaks to insurers who allow people with pre-existing conditions to enroll. Don't mandate that I have to buy something I don't want and call it a tax. Their is enough of that already. We are taxed enough in our day-to-day life.

As far as the shutdown goes, the GOP needs to go ahead, eat this one and pass a clean CR to fund the government for 6 months. As much as I hate to "kick the can down the road" AGAIN, they should one last time. Then both sides should go to committee and FIX the damn budget. Strip ALL pork from Washington spending. An immigration bill shouldn't include money to boost tourism advertisement for Nevada. Both sides are equally guilty of this. That is a subject for another post, though.

Bottom line, we have to demand the fix. Call your Representative and Senators. Tell them to stop the fighting and fund the government. Leverage them to do better than balance the budget. Get us to a balance surplus. Use that surplus to PAY DOWN the debt instead of just making interest payments. If they refuse, show them your anger in the voting booth instead of just shrugging it off. We have the power, people. We just have to use it.

Who is Really Responsible for the Government Shutdown?

Watching Fox News one will quickly learn that the blame for the government shutdown falls squarely on Harry Reid, the Senate and President Barack Obama. Change the channel to MSNBC or CNN, and it becomes evident that John Boehner, Ted Cruz and the House of Representatives are the cause of the shutdown. Who does the blame really fall on?

Us. We the people. The citizens that only really care about politics while blogging or blasting out tweets. The people who really only get active in the political debate during election seasons. The people who vote almost exclusively along party lines, very rarely listening to what candidates actually say nor the actual substance of their political views. In the age of a 24 hour news cycle that does nothing to hide partisanship, we turn to talking heads on TV and radio to tell us what to think.

Look at most Twitter arguments. They generally consist of 140 character blurbs paraphrasing the words of talking heads on the cable news networks. Self described conservatives parrot the likes of Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Eric Bolling, et al. Self described Progressives/Liberals use the words of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz,  Al Sharpton, etc, etc. Very rarely do people espouse their own opinions or views in their OWN words.

We let the pundits spoon feed us "our" opinions and vote for who they tell us we should. These people are trying to draw an audience, which I applaud! It is hard, however, to draw viewers in with moderate, common sense views. So these folks do what pays the bills and take a hard right/left approach with commentary. They dangle that politically charged carrot right in front of us and boy, do we run as hard as we can to eat it.

Any time a Republic lawmaker takes a moderate approach to an issue, that lawmaker is branded a RINO. A Democrat voicing a moderate thought on an issue is a DINO. No one ever takes a second to listen to what those lawmakers are actually saying and think about whether or not it actually makes sense. The moderate approaches of people like John Mccain (one of the greatest men to ever be a senator), John Boehner (until recently), Ted Poe and others are blasted by those self proclaimed conservatives as "caving to the progressives!" Someone like Joe Manchin, Tom Carper, etc are accused of catering to the Tea Party.

We instead let the talking heads convince us the extreme partisan views of people like Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and so on and so on are the only solutions to our problems. If you think about it, it is really sad.

We are never going to support every position of ever politician in every instance. We must, however, stop letting the talking heads stop telling us what to think! If Ronald Reagan where to see the GOP of today, he would be pissed. If FDR where the President, he would tell the Democratic party to get their crap together. And if the the Founding Fathers could see what has become of political discourse today, I think they would kick some ass in a bipartisan manner.

How do we fix it? We get involved. We right/call/email our elected officials. We listen to what they say. Observe how they vote on issues. And if what they are doing isn't making sense, we don't re-elect them. We show the talking heads that the average American isn't hard right/left. We are somewhere closer to the center. We vote for people who don't just talk the latest party tags, but people who do what is truly better for their constituents. We stop voting for people who go to Washington just to go their and gain national attention, but those who listen to the people they represent! Until then, politicians are going to keep playing tug-o-war and someday, that rope will break.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has been a while since I blogged. I was taking a break from political blogging and news to refresh. I am now going to get back into the swing of things. Please feel free to follow me. Leave comments and lets get engaged in a real conversation. 

-The Independent Thinker

Fast Food Workers to Strike Over Ridiculous Pay Demands.

Reading through the daily news, I ran across an article stating that "Organizers say thousands of fast-food workers are set to stage walkouts in dozens of cities around the country Thursday, part of a push to get chains such as McDonald's, Taco Bell and Wendy's to pay workers higher wages." (1) Not being completely unsympathetic to the needs of those in low income jobs, I continued to read. I was hoping that these folks weren't still demanding $15 an hour. I was wrong. As I continued reading, I became quite angry, as the story highlighted one person in particular. 

She is Shaniqua Davis, and she lives in the Bronx with her unemployed boyfriend and her 1 year old daughter. Automatically, my heart goes out to the child. Then the questions in my mind start to form. Why doesn't her boyfriend have a job? Understand that the job market is scarce, but here in Alexandria, Va, there are help wanted signs in a lot of fast food places. Next question, is he receiving unemployment assistance? The article, though read on Yahoo, is an AP article and does not take the next step in answering that question (if they ever asked her in the first place). Is Ms. Davis taking night classes or anything of that sort to improve her situation? The article never says.

I continue reading and learn that Ms. Davis is paid 7.25 an hour working at a McDonalds a few blocks from her apartment and that she is never able to work a full 40 hour week (to which I would suggest finding another part time job). She pays her rent with help from public assistance and has a hard time paying for food and diapers for her daughter. The next part infuriates me. It states that she is having trouble paying cab fees, subway fees, cable TV and other bills. Excuse me? You work a couple of blocks from where you live. So cabs and subway fares aren't needed for transportation to work. Bills are more than likely mailed to you and you can mail the payment back. Cable TV? If you can't afford diapers, why are you shelling out loot for cable TV? Where are your priorities? Ms. Davis goes on to say that her daughter needs stuff and that she (Ms. Davis) needs stuff for her apartment. Your daughter needs food, diapers and clothes. What stuff do you "need" for your apartment?

Cable TV < Diapers

I admit that I don't know Ms. Davis personally. I further acknowledge that the AP only reports what they want in order to further their own narrative. I am not trying to attack Ms. Davis personally by any means. I am only using her statements and the statements in the article to highlight the bigger problem in our great country. People would rather gripe about their situation than take the time and effort to make it better. And no, striking for $15 an hour to work fast food is not taking the time or effort. People in this situation should be picking themselves up by their bootstraps and making things better for themselves. It isn't easy. Not by any means- especially in today's economic climate. However, does who takes a minimum wage fast food job and looks at it as a long term career? Unless you plan to earn a degree while working their and pursue district managerial positions, this is no career. It is a job to help out temporarily while you pursue other endeavors such as training, education, or job hunting. I do think that it is time to review the minimum wage and consider an increase between $1.00-$2.00 an hour. Doubling it is absurd. Take for instance the case of Ms. Davis. If wages where increased to $15 an hour, that would be $31,000 a year (for a 40 hour work week which Ms. Davis says she can't get). The average salary for a police officer in the Bronx is $43,000 a year. (2) Just chew on that for a bit.

Leave me your comments and let me know what you think.

Fifty Years Later, How is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's Dream?

Fifty years ago today, brave men and women marched on our nation's capitol to demand equality and justice. People all of colors and religions descended upon the Lincoln Memorial and hear a series of Civil Rights leaders speak about inequality in the United States of America. It was a hot summer day, but that did not deter those in attendance, nor those speaking. One man gave a 17 minute speech that has gone down in history as one of the finest speeches given in the United States of America. That man, of course, was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and he had a dream.

His dream was one of equality, of brotherhood, of fellowship. His dream was one of all people being judged, as he so eloquently put it "...not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." On that hot summer day, he shared a dream of a nation of true freedom for all people. That dream continues into this day. We have come a long way as a nation, but to say the journey is over is to accept a half-accomplished goal.

The minority community still faces disparate poverty and incarceration. It is not completely the fault of the government. Seventy percent of African American children are born to a single mother. Only 52 percent of black males graduate from high school. Rap music overwhelmingly promotes a "gangsta" image where drug use and gang life is exalted while working hard in school and getting an education is besmirched. An African American friend and I spoke of the lack of education in black culture. He told me that if you are the black kid in some schools that raises your hand to answer questions and you get good grades, you are mocked by your black peers.

Though I don't place the whole of the blame on the government, one place where it does hold back the African American community is with social welfare programs. Programs initially created with the intent to help now hurt. Programs meant to lift hold people back. Programs imagined with the best intentions have become the worse practice.

The Civil Rights leaders of today fail to address these things. They instead blame Conservatives. To be a black Conservative in this day and age is to be an "Uncle Tom." Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have the biggest Civil Rights pulpit and could use that to advance the need for education, the need for families, the need to break reliance on social welfare programs. Instead, they spew vitriol and draw attention away from the real issues instead of addressing them head on. I don't know why and I suppose that I never will. Until a prominent Civil Rights leader has the courage to stand up and bring attention to the real problems and call bull on the idea that one political party is trying to hold minorities down, the trend will continue and Dr. King's dream will not come to true fruition.

Should the US Conduct Strikes in Syria?

It is the biggest story of the day: The potential for US to conduct strikes in Syria in response to chemical weapons use by the Assad regime against its own citizens. Well, surprise surprise- by and large, most people's opinions tend to fall along their party affiliation. It seems to me that Democrats think strikes are necessary and Republicans think that the United States should mind its own business.

"Hey, Conservative Cody, what do you think about Syria?"
"Well, Liberal Laura, I think that we have no business there because GOP!"

I don't know what the United States should do. I do think that there should be a response to the use of chemical weapons. The response should be from the United Nations, not the United States of America. I know that that statement is loaded. For example, Russia and China hold VETO power in the UN Security Council and aren't likely to support strikes. I also believe that President Obama backed himself into a corner by making his "red line" statement. Now we have Iran watching for any actual response (or lack their of) from the United States. Also, al-Qaeda and Iran are supporting the rebels in Syria, so attacking the Assad regime is supporting them. Not a very pretty scenario. What happens if the Assad regime were to fall due to strikes? Who would fill the power vacuum. So many difficult questions and know easy answers.

The troublesome thing about all of this is that, once again, our country is proving itself inept at critical thinking and instead are relying on party affiliation to help them make decisions and arguments. Everyone from politicians to average Joe at the water cooler is weighing on it and for the most part, it is all about the party you support. That is a trend that has gotten this great nation to the political stalemate that we see today. Politicians don't vote for legislation based on the action, result and benefit of the purposed law. No, they vote for whether or not it forwards their parties narrative. The American public at large is no better. If a Liberal supports a piece of legislation drafted and overwhelmingly supported by Conservatives, he/she is a sellout. if the inverse is true, the Conservative member is labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only). And a lot of those labeled politicians lose re-elections in favor of more extreme left/right candidates, further polarizing the political debate.

The question of striking Syria isn't a partisan one. It is a decision based on morality and practicality. It must be looked at carefully. Is it in the United States best interests to strike? I don't know. I don't envy President Obama's position. As the leader of the free world, he has to lead the way in trying to keep travesties, like those in Syria, from happening. I think that maybe, just maybe, everyone should put down the party banner, pick up the American banner, and look at this in a pragmatic way. It is only in that way that the best decision, whatever it may be, can be reached. I promise that the petty arguments will still be there after this is over.

E pluribus unum.

Entitlement State of Mind

It is everywhere in the news. The minimum wage is too low. We need a living wage. SNAP doesn't provide enough money to feed a family. Health care is a right. Home ownership is a right. The government should be helping more. Oh, and there are COMMERCIALS for so called "Obama phones." Because, again, cell phones are a right.

Everybody in Cleveland got an Obama phone.

There is a problem in this country when hard work and dedication have become laughable when, in thirteen states, entitlement program pay more than pay more than a $15/hr job. In fact, in D.C., a welfare recipient can get the equivalent of up to $24.43/hr according to a CATO study. Where is the motivation to work for a lesser paying job when you can just sit at home and collect welfare? This is laughable and sad at the same time. Can you imagine the anger of the Founding Fathers if they could see that? 

Benjamin Franklin is looking at us in disgust.

Truth be told, we are in a recession and the "Summer of Recovery" didn't quite pan out. It is understandable that some people are going to need some help. What isn't understandable is the expansion of welfare benefits signed into law as part of the Economic Stimulus under President Obama. The government shouldn't be expanding welfare, it should be expanding JOBS. 

This brings me to the minimum wage vs the "living wage." I am going to go ahead and get this one out of the way: Working the register at a fast food joint or Wal Mart is a no skill job that is best filled by students or adults looking for a higher paying job elsewhere. If you work at McDonalds expecting to feed a family of 2 or more off of a cashiers wage, you should smack yourself. A person in that circumstance should understand the situation that they have put themselves in and seek part time employment elsewhere or, better yet, learn a skill and seek a higher paying job. The last statement gives me an idea: how about the government cut funds from all of the pork stuffed into every bill and fund a training program in each state designed to provide skills and higher wage jobs! That would be so much more effective than just slinging buzzwords at one another. Instead of ideas and action, we get rhetoric and the blame game. It isn't fair to the American people.

I'm looking at you

And you

Some have suggested that the minimum wage should be raised, some even suggesting $15/hr become the benchmark. Well, I am no professional economist (a lot of good they've been the last few years) but I would think that if you artificially inflate wages by almost double, the prices of products are going to rise. "But wait," some say, "The corporations already have massive profit margins, they can afford it without raising prices!" Now, that is flawed for a couple of different reasons. Corporations use those profits to invest in new products and services and expansion. Eat into those profits, reduce investment and expansion. Pretty easy. Furthermore. why WOULD they want to eat the cost of wage increase and why SHOULD they. The goal of a business is to make money. You, as an employee, agree to a wage/salary and possibly benefits for doing work. The company agrees to pay it. The responsibility of the company ends there. It isn't Wal Mart's job to make sure you can make ends meet. Take a little personal responsibility and try to improve yourself instead of looking to others to do it for you.

Back to welfare and entitlements. Why are people on welfare rewarded for having more children? More children, more money! Shouldn't it be capped at say, two at most? This is one of the more idiotic aspects of welfare. It breeds a system of reliance. The Liberals are literally keeping people dependent on the system yet claim they want to help people. Another thing that I hear too often is that SNAP (food stamp program) doesn't provide enough money to feed a family. First, let me say that I support SNAP. It has it's place. But the acronym stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, not Sole Nutrition Allocation Program. It is meant to supplement income. "But what if I don't get an income?" Then you are likely on welfare. Get a job.

Welfare and SNAP should be tied to job hunting. If you aren't looking for employment, you don't get either. I understand that some cases exist where people can't work anymore. Those should be looked at case by case. But to keep with the widespread allowance of welfare without any checks and balances? That is irresponsible.

I am irritated seeing someone use their EBT cards to pay for food while talking on a smartphone and wearing $150.00 shoes. I get furious when I see people buy alcohol with SNAP.

Ummm, come again?

 If you have a nice, big plasma t.v. with video game consoles hooked up, you don't deserve welfare- you deserve a slap upside the head. Help yourself. Work hard for training in a higher paying career. Stop being satisfied with skill-less jobs that pay little. Stop being satisfied with relying on the government. Have some pride. That is the American way.

The Justice Department is at it Again

Well, you have to give AG Holder credit where credit is due. He has an agenda, and he is determined to see it through. The latest example of the Department of Justice (DOJ) sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong is in Louisiana. The subject of DOJ ire this time: Louisiana's statewide school voucher program.

Justice as we see it.

                                                           

Taken from the states website for the Louisiana Scholarship Program:
The Luoisiana Scholarship Program is a program designed to provide students with additional opportunities to attend high quality schools. Applicants are eligible to receive state-funded scholarships to enroll in participating nonpublic schools or high performing public schools.
Only students who meet the residency and income requirements and are attending a "C," "D," or "F" public school this school year are eligible to apply.  (1)

The law allows for low-income families to transfer students from failing schools to successful schools. You know, give them a "fair shot," a favorite phrase of President Obama . (2).

No fair shot at staying dry

                                                                 


It would seem that AG Holder is against such a fair shot for low-income families because the families taking that shot are white. The DOJ contention is that this program is essentially segregating schools in Louisiana. Note that ALL low-income families meeting the requirements qualify and have an opportunity to utilize the program, not just white families.



AG Holder could use this as an opportunity to encourage minority families to use this program to get their children out of failing schools and into private schools, yet he chooses not to do that. Instead, he would rather deprive children of this opportunity because some families aren't taking advantage. I don't see the motivation behind this and am having trouble understanding why anyone would want to deny this opportunity. What do you think? Am I way off base? Am I missing something? Let me know in the comments.