Let me first condemn them for their biased coverage, their blaming of the Tea-party, Sarah Palin and all things “right-wing”.    Even if the truth had been that the killer was a right-wing fanatic, there is no one [...]]]> The horrible tragedy in Arizona has once again proven to me that the traditional media is lost.

Let me first condemn them for their biased coverage, their blaming of the Tea-party, Sarah Palin and all things “right-wing”.    Even if the truth had been that the killer was a right-wing fanatic, there is no one to blame but the fanatic looking for a reason to strike.   In this case, the evidence was easy to find.  His own postings or his list of favorite books. A little more digging would have found his suspension from Pima Community College,  his classmates or his failed military application [go ahead and follow-up but let me finish].   I do not believe this information was ignored, I believe it was not sought.   And this is the main point.

The media today, awash in the Internet and unsure of their standing, has lost control.    Seeing their traditional model destroyed by free content, blogging and ever-present public postings, they have jumped in full boar.     This is not the answer.   You cannot cover sensationalized and outright biased reporting by simply qualifying it with, “We have no proof” or “the story is still developing but…”   You also cannot run a for profit business, employ professional journalists and compete on equal footing with free content.   But they continue to try and do so and to try and beat the public to the stories.    Like many failed businesses (especially of late) they try to compete and fail and then push for regulation of the alternative to regain their position (Atlas Shrugged anyone).  This is the conflict in media today.  The path they have chosen has to stop.

The media, a once respected group of high-profile professional journalists, are now over-paid bloggers in a New York office.   What is required, and what should be learned from this tragedy, is not that 24-7 media is bad or evil, it just IS.   It is the users that make it what it has become and the users that will make it what it will be.    You cannot compete with sensationalism by trying to be more sensational and maintain any part of objectivity.   There is a gaping hole in this country for well thought out, well researched and, yes, well debated content.   The goal is not to compete on their terms (free and sensational) but to create a competitive and superior model to the one that exists today.

It would be self-serving to say that this is the model that I plan to create.    But it is my blog.  This is the reason I started blogging and why I don’t like the model to which I subscribe.  I am working on a new model.   One that I believe serves the needs of professional journalists and can compete head-to-head with the free content Internet that is here to stay.   I look forward to the day when I can sunset this blog for the new and improved medium that will supplant this domain.

If you can get through this whole article [Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year] without swearing, [...]]]> This is the kind of article this site was built to find (and eventually expose).   A stunning misrepresentation of facts around social security insolvency and lack of intent to give a balanced view of the issue.

If you can get through this whole article [Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year] without swearing, yelling or shaking your head, you need to read related articles and begin thinking for yourself.   Even if you are shocked by the article, I would appreciate you reading ahead and seeing what we saw and adding in more that we may have missed.

Here is a bit of truth from the CBO.

Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said “that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program’s revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.”

The times follows this with a general review of how the CBO and Social Security got this wrong.  “Officials foresaw an average unemployment rate of 8.2 percent in 2009 and 8.8 percent this year, though unemployment is hovering at nearly 10 percent.”   Buehler?…anyone?… This projection was before the stimulus bill was passed which was a massive expenditure so that unemployment would  “reach a peak of 7.8%”.   Did they forget that; or would that fact make the “experts” missed estimate even larger and possibly make one think that increased spending and debt may not have been the best solution for job creation?

In this and the following paragraph they bring out two more facts.   That Social Security “last year projected revenue would more than cover payouts until at least 2016.”  And that is because of this data “they moved the year of reckoning forward, to 2037 from 2041.”  The year of reckoning being the point where Social Security is completely bankrupt.    I find it a bit hard to believe that being wrong by 6 years on the short term estimate would give you confidence in a smaller four year move on the long term.  Basic math would say that less short term revenue would mean less interest and a faster decline in long term value.   But this is an opinion which I can excuse…until “Goss said that large cushion could start to grow again if the economy recovers briskly.  Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s projection shows the ravages of the recession easing in the next few years, with small surpluses reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.”    And if it does not we end it all when?

In an unrelated thought, The CBOs estimates of the intakes and outlays of Social Security are still wrong after over 50 years of practice.   Yet we think they are accurate on the 10 and 20 years projections of a brand new health care system.   Another unrelated, unrelated thought from design:  You can not predict changes in behavior.

Moving on, The NY times states, “politicians, who are already struggling over how to reduce the nation’s debt.”   Maybe their definition of  “struggling over” is a bit different than mine.  Or did they choose this over “unable” or “unwilling” purposefully?

Then it gets fun.  “The United States’ soaring debt — propelled by tax cuts, wars and large expenditures to help banks and the housing market — has become a hot issue as Democrats gauge their vulnerability in the coming elections.”  and…and… No that was it.   No mention of stimulus [does this explain why it was ignored above as well?].  No mention of a billion dollar health care bill.  Even if you think it will curb health care costs, you think it would be mentioned as a potential risk.

But that is not the worst of it, the fact is that the tax cuts increased jobs and amounted to over 1.5 Trillion more dollars of tax revenue to the federal government over the years from 2004-2007.   But even that is really not connected because tax cuts have nothing to do with gross income which is the basis for FICA and Social Security.   Having a job is the basis for Social Security income and that is the problem.

They end with this, ““Even if the trust fund level goes down, there’s no action required, until the level of the trust fund gets to zero,” he said. “At that point, you have to cut benefits, because benefits have to equal receipts.”   Fact, truth and a PONZI scheme [definition: "pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."]    The fact is your money, as paid in, is gone.  It was given to current recipients with the knowledge that we will go bankrupt in less than 30 years,  yet ” there’s no action required.”  And this has no impact on the NY Times.   The fact is,  Bernie Madoff is in jail for 150 years for this same thing.  In pronouncing the sentence, Judge Denny Chin called the crimes “extraordinarily evil.”  I agree.

There are a few more things missing that I believe should have been mentioned.  For example, George Bush tried to reform Social Security in 2004 and was saying, “allow younger workers at their choice to invest some of their own money in the private markets to get a better rate of return so that the Social Security promise will be kept.”    The argument against it was that he was fear mongering and it required significant cuts in retirement benefits and heavy borrowing during the transition to the private system.

MSNBC covered it back then subtitled “How credible are President Bush’s dire predictions?”, “By exaggerating the severity of Social Security’s problems, Bush risks alienating even many of those who might be inclined to support [his plans]“. ““In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,” Bush said.  That is just plain wrong.”   Well it was wrong, it will happen two years earlier.   At least they got that part right.

Update 8/5: Social Security in the red in 2010. They were off by a mere 6 years in a 6 year prediction from less than 6 months ago.     But that is ok,  “The deficit will last through 2011, then an improving economy [emphasis added] will put it back into balance for three years, then it will dip back into the red in 2015, the actuary said.”  So we have nothing to worry about.  These “experts” obviously know what they are talking about.

As people scream these labels at the administration, it is easy to say, “Whoa, that goes to far.”   I will [...]]]> Do you think that title is true?  Have you ever even stopped to think about it?   What I have found is most people haven’t.  They assume it is true but never really think about it.

As people scream these labels at the administration, it is easy to say, “Whoa, that goes to far.”   I will admit I have my fears about the path we are on and the rapid desire of this administration to get there at any cost.  But arguing the emotional…”Yes, he is.  No, he isn’t” does not go far.  Next time, try this.

Ask calmly, “Do you believe there are NO communists(socialists) in America?”   You will likely get some comment about “a small, fringe, etc.”  Point to the recent protests for “education funding in CA”.   Ask if they bothered to look who was behind it.    Maybe you could entice them to read up a bit on it.   Since they probably have not bothered to look, you might try asking this follow-up, “Do you remember the big pro-Communist Party groups and politicians running around in the 70s?”   They may not and you might need to remind them that until the fall of the Soviet Union they were pumping money into the US to try and change our direction.

Try this on for size: As for issues, the CPUSA calls for free universal health care, elimination of the federal income tax on people earning under $60,000 a year, free college education, drastic cuts in military spending, “massive” public works programs, the outlawing of “scabs and union busting,” abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries, huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to “beat the power of the capitalist class …

Nothing like the current administration at all.

As for issues, the current administration calls for free universal health care, eliminating increasing the federal income tax on people earning under over $60,000 a year, free college education (i.e forgiving of student loans if you serve the community), drastic cuts in military spending, “massive” public works programs (i.e. shovel ready stimulus), the outlawing “scabs and simplied creation of a union busting,” abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries (i.e banks, car companies), huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to “beat the power of the capitalist class …”

Yeah, not even close!

I remember, and these days I ask myself, “Where did they go?”  Did they decide they where wrong and change sides?  Did they just go “Poof!”? Did they move away?  OR did they just get quiet?   Being quiet… did they work or live in caves and under rocks?  What kind of jobs would they have taken?   Van Jones said it best, “I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”   I would put my money on Professors, Union Representatives and Community Organizers as some of the favorites.     It will take someone with better research then me to trace these paths but a few old articles and interviews from the late 60s and early 70s would likely turn up some interesting information.

The simple fact is they were here, are here and they always will be here.    Is it possible that as funding dried up when the Socialists and Communists decided to join the Democratic party and fight from within instead of outside it as a third party?   Does that not sound a lot like the conservative Tea Party conversation within the GOP?  The real question needs to be,  “Is it possible that we elected one to be President?”  Some now answer, “Yes!”   Some simply say it is not possible but that (as listed above) is just an emotional response and not supported by the facts.  Cut the people that use labels some slack, they just happen to see the connections and the direction and have assigned name to it.

As for the rest, the answer should be easy; had there been a 10-20 year voting and legislative record.  But there isn’t.   Therefore, we are left with current actions and those with which he chooses to surround himself.  So far a few self-labeled communists, a few Mao supporters and a handful of those that think Marx was pretty darn smart.   There is a lot of love for FDR.    There are not a lot of mentions of our founding fathers (besides Lincoln:)).   Then we have the take over of 34% of the US private sector and a mad dash for 17% more in health care and the rest of the student loan programs.

One final quiz question.  What do you call the form of government when government controls 50+% of  industry?  Especially, the distribution of all money and health services?  Is certainly is not a Representative Republic or a Democracy; but it is a “fundamental change for America.”

“You think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, slow down, it’s [...]]]> Much has been made about Harry Reid’s attempt to link opposition to heath care to opposition to slavery, woman’s rights and civil rights.

“You think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, slow down, it’s too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted slow down, there will be a better day to do that. The day isn’t quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

Here are a few links to the obvious.

The Politico: GOP erupts over Reid slavery, segregation remarks
Fox News: Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery

The obvious angles have already been taken. The left agrees with him and the right is correctly notifying him that those that opposed these actions where actually Democrats. Most will write this off as finger pointing and posturing, which of course it is. There are opposition parties and they often oppose actions by the other party. Little of this opposition rises to the level of this debate and those mentioned by Harry Reid.   Below the obvious politics lies a more important point.

All of these arguments, including Health Care, are about freedom. Freedom to live out your life as God intended and as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In all cases, the opposition sided with freedom and the American people and the Democrats sided with government power and the infringement of freedom.  It is this point that needs to be made and why all Americans should watch this debate with great trepidation.   Unfortunately, it is this point that the politicians and the media fail to understand.  American freedom suffers another blow because of it.

1. Breakfast Bar 2. Snickers with Almonds…darn Halloween 3. Coke Zero (maybe?) 4. A few Pot-stickers 5. Pumpkin Pie

I did eat some chicken and [...]]]> Today I ate a few things that I probably should not have eaten. They we good. I started thinking…What did I eat today that a Cuban National probably did not?

1. Breakfast Bar
2. Snickers with Almonds…darn Halloween
3. Coke Zero (maybe?)
4. A few Pot-stickers
5. Pumpkin Pie

I did eat some chicken and some vegetables and an apple, but I figure they have a better then average chance of getting those foods as well. Gee, I wonder why the Cubans have a longer life expectancy then me.

Off of the food topic, I drove 23 miles each way in traffic at 50+ (when I could) to get to work. Work.. where I juggled three projects and the changing expectations of the business.

Oh, how I wish I had no job, no stress of expectations and success and just enough food to survive. Then I could expect to live a few years longer. That is change we can believe in, or at least expect as look to Cuba for the model of our Health Care system.

Why is Newt trying to rewrite history, including his own?  Does he believe sucking up to the Liberal Republicans will ensure [...]]]> “If you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority,” Gingrich said in a written statement. “That’s not how Reagan built his revolution or how we won back the House in 1994.”

Why is Newt trying to rewrite history, including his own?  Does he believe sucking up to the Liberal Republicans will ensure his nomination in 2012?   He could not be more wrong, and hopefully in both counts.   This does not come easy because Gingrich used to be one of our favorite Republicans.   His belief in American exceptionalism, his desire to educate at local universities, his desire for smaller government, have all taken a backseat to his seeming desire to be liked and be on TV.

What propelled Reagan and propelled the GOP into power in 1994 was LEADERSHIP.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Following the GOP where they tell you to go is not leadership. Trying to build a “big tent” by having no values is not leadership.   I do not advocate exclusionary policies, but leadership does mean taking a stand and letting the cards fall where they may.

Reagan did not bow to the Soviets to change ???tax policy to include others in the party.   He articulated his beliefs clearly and effectively and convinced other to follow his lead.   Reagan was probably more conservative then the population but he convinced them to trust his leadership and led us to success.   The contract with America was similar.   Not everyone agreed with every policy, but they agreed with the tenants of smaller government and appreciated the willingness of Republicans to write down there ideas and stick to them.   Republicans both leaders and followers were brought into power in a wave of public support.

Republicans have lost since, not because they became more conservative then Reagan (more on that to come).   They lost because they lost leaders that were able to articulate what they believe.  Many that remain are simply followers left to wander Washington DC alone, brought in with Reagan and/or “the Contract”.     Looking for leadership, and lacking it themselves, they latched on to pseudo-leaders in the Senate and House.    Then again a pseudo-leader in President Bush.   All of which have led them astray.

The Republican party is conservative.   The country is conservative.  Heck, the Democrats that defeated the Republicans in 2006 were conservative.   What the Republicans need is not liberal Republicans and a big tent.  What they need is leadership.