The Positive of Reaching the Debt Limit

In about a week (the date is unsure - estimated at 17 October), the government will no longer be able to borrow money to keep operating at the current level of expenditure.  I have read that we spend about $2 billion a day more than what comes in via revenue.  So what we have is a cash flow issue, and we need to cut $2B per day (or about $750B per year) to remain solvent.  Any business owner knows a negative cash flow is not sustainable long term, yet the government has been doing this for decades.

So, starting soon, the government will have to make tough choices that are solely within the authority of the Executive Branch.  Some say the government will default on it's debt payment - that is only one choice the President has (and it would be a disastrous choice at that).  Sure, the Congress has authorized many more programs than can be funded under the current cash flow, but the reality means its up to the President to make those tough choices of what continues since Congress can't in a timely manner.  The situation has given the President the unprecedented opportunity to take bold action and provide some fiscal responsibility back into government.

To be fair, I am no fan of this President.  In fact, I think it is brutally obvious he is the worst President in the last 100 years (there were some pretty bad Presidents in the reconstruction era, so it would be presumptuous to say "worst ever" at this point).  However, this would be an opportunity to shine, and perhaps to regain some positive legacy.  And Obama is in a unique political position to pull it off.  I just don't think he will.

So what would Ron do?  Here are my suggested priorities of funding, and suggested approaches.

1) Service the Debt - We need to do this as multiple administrations and both parties have signed our future away.

2) Maintain the National Defense - Keep the DoD and Intelligence services funded as needed to protect our borders and safety.  However, this doesn't mean at current levels.  Reduce our current deployment expenses.  Don't start any new overseas initiatives and reduce the current ones.  And eliminate some of the big ticket ships-planes-tanks-satellites we are building to save some big bucks.

3) Eliminate a Cabinet Department (not just rearrange the deck chairs).  Education and Labor are the usual suspects, but think out of the box.

4) First blush, spread the remaining cuts evenly (percentage wise) across all the remaining Departments,  including the so called "Entitlements".  Perhaps limit Social Security to 5% cut, but this area is a big budget item and balancing cannot happen without cuts.

You do not solve a $750 Billion problem with small steps.  Major programs and efforts need to be cut, like an Aircraft Carrier, a couple Army Divisions, a Cabinet office, etc.  This is the only way to reach the cost target.  And we need to realize we can no longer fund the world, so an easy one is to stop the foreign aid program till we get back on our own feet.  I also don't believe that entitlements cannot be trimmed drastically.  There are many subsidies which are non critical to food and shelter safety nets.

Yes, there will be pain in the country, for at least a year as the economy adjusts.  And there will be stories of children being harmed by the loss of Head Start.  On a personal level, as a civil servant, I may lose my job as well.  However I believe the generosity of Americans will rise to the occasion in the private sector and through individual choice to support those in need, as has historically been done and as it should be done.

The fact is the country cannot sustain what is currently being funded.  We are running a fiat economy now which is not infinitely sustainable.  Just as it would have been better for Bush to have let Lehman Brothers fail, it is better to take the pain now while we can still recover.

Unlike the current Political leadership, I am willing to negotiate :)

Furlough Bullying

So we are a week into the shutdown/Furlough. It's clear to me that both parties wanted it to happen, mainly to just blame the other guy.  But thats not the point of this post.

What is truly shocking is the level of pettiness of the administration. They are actually spending effort (money) to "shut down",  Examples include:

  The blocking of open air monuments, 
  Forcibly closing private businesses on parkland that are not within gates
  Evicting (elderly) people from their privately owned homes if they are on Federal land. 

That is not leadership, its bullying.  To make it clear, the administration is SPENDING MONEY to do things that do not have to be done.  Just close the gates, send the Rangers home (most of them), and stop harassing citizens.  It costs the government NOTHING to NOT block off scenic vistas on roads, to NOT harass private businesses and people who have property on Federal Land.

Of course, they allow a march for ILLEGIAL IMMIGRANTS on the National Mall, but give a $100 ticket to a citizen for running on the paths.  Go figure...  

Overlooked part of Snowden Saga

   Many have written of the acts and potential fate of Edward Snowden for disclosing classified information regarding the government sponsored invasion of privacy.  While that is interesting, and worthy of intense debate, it is well covered by others.  What I feel is not being covered are the acts and fate of the other players in this drama – the ones who may have broken their oaths to the Constitution to implement the programs Mr. Snowden felt obliged to expose.  The purpose of this column is to create a starting point for that discussion.

  As far as I can tell, all members of the government from the President to the Congress to the Judiciary to the lowliest Civil Servant takes an Oath to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States.  In fact, the Presidential Oath says nothing except to protect the Constitution.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

            Oath of Office for the President

  The Constitution is the highest law of our land.  It cannot be changed except by Amendment, though through the years Judicial decisions have weakened and changed the meaning of several parts via fiat, with the (mostly passive) support of the Legislative and Executive branches.  Given that a (the?) main purpose of the Constitution is to protect the Citizens from the Government, it makes sense that the government organs would follow this path.  To date, a vast majority of the Citizenry seems to either not have noticed, or not cared enough to complain.  It is interesting that the current events in Egypt reflect their populace caring enough to act as the freely elected Islamists infringed on their constitution.

  The programs exposed by Mr. Snowden clearly are unconstitutional per the 4^th Amendment.  That is, the actions of the government are clearly illegal. 

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html) 

  The question at hand is how to correct this illegality (since the programs continue), and what are the penalties for those who broke the law.  Also, identification of WHO should be held responsible is not always clear.

  It would be easy to point a finger at the National Security Agency, or other intelligence agencies, and feel the culprit has been found.  But in my view the responsibility is with those in charge who ordered or sponsored the activity more so than those who implemented it.

  Though we really don’t know, I suspect the program originated in the Executive Branch, somewhere in the National Security Apparatus.  So the first person with responsibility is not the person who “thought” of the idea (as many ideas both good and bad are brought forth), but the person who “approved” the implementation.  The President(s) in place, as the leader of the Executive branch and ultimate approver during this activity, should be held accountable, as well as their staff who assisted in circumventing the Constitution -such as their Legal Counsel.  How far it goes should be decided by Grand Jury or Impeachment proceeding.

  Impeachment may be difficult as the Legislative branch leadership is also culpable.  It is acknowledged by their pubic pronouncements that both the Majority and Minority leadership of both the House and Senate were briefed and continue to support the activity.  As are the majority of members in the House and Senate Select Intelligence committees who necessarily approved the program.  The only legislators that could ethically sit in judgment would be those who were themselves not tainted by the approval process of this activity.

  I am also curious as to what kind of Federal Judge would find a compelling argument to approve the vast and ubiquitous invasion of privacy without a probable cause.   We can safely assume that the judges chosen for the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are not chosen for their vigorous defense of personal freedom or individual liberty!  But it takes a special level of hubris or incompetence to blatantly disregard such a fundamental freedom.  This is the person (after the President) who holds the highest level of responsibility and deserves the strictest punishment for failing the constitution.

  Since I know the Politicians involved would not do the honorable thing and resign, I believe the only way forward would be to begin the process of impeachment of current officers, and a special prosecutor for those no longer serving.  This would be a far reaching and painful process, but one that is needed to restore the rule of law within the government.  A government that has grown contemptuous of personal liberty.  For those that saw the erosion of our liberty is required to protect us from threats, I need only to quote perhaps the wisest and most intelligent person to ever live in this land, and one who also lived in a time of great peril…

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

-       Ben Franklin

Newtown and Medication

As we are all saddened by the tragedy at Newtown, I hear no concern or outcry about the fact that all of these teens/young adults that do these heinous things are medicated, generally for years, by drugs such as RItilan, Adderall, or worse.  Why is that???  I'm stumped as to why this isn't a discussion point...

These drugs alter brain chemistry, and juvenile minds are known to be in a transition state.  Any time you mess with personality, there is an opportunity for that change to be negative.

I’ve seen in my own family how readily and eager “Mental Health Professionals” are to subscribe more and higher dosages.  I’m sure in most cases the doctors are performing admirably, but I am concerned at the acceptance of society to putting more and more drugs into our bodies.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the gun debate, and these discussions need to occur. (I land on the side of gun control only effects law abiding citizens).   But I truly fear that the gun debate will obscure whet, in my opinon, is the root cause – medication of children.

Obama could win - Really?

I really don't understand why a significant percentage of US Persons are still considering voting for President Obama in November.  I'll explain below...

First, I am one of the dreaded "Independents", and have a Libertarian view (socially "liberal", fiscally "conservative") and I lean to minimal government.  So in truth, the recent Democratic Party has left little interest for me.

That being said, why is Obama still competitive?    I understand why Americans of "african" descent will overwhelmingly support Obama, and similarly why Mormans will overwhelmingly support Romney.  That is simple human nature to support one's clan, and I have no issue with that.  I also know hard core Dems and Repubs will vote the Party Line, even if Hitler were at the top of the ticket.  I have issue with that, but accept it.

The question is, Why do roughly half of the 40-50% of the rest of us still support Obama?  His Presidency, by any objective measure, has been a disaster.  He has proven to have no leadership skills, no consensus building ability, and does not inspire confidence in many people.  The nation is heading in the fiscal direction of Greece, and the personal liberty direction of Russia.

Romney is a centrist, not a right wing fanatic (Ryan is the right wing dude on ticket).  Romney is a successful businessman and politician, and has a much better resume than Obama had in 2008.  He is milquetoast, but has not had any major gaffes.  He's had his issues with misstatements for sure, none terribly offensive.

I'm not terribly thrilled about Romney (would've preferred Ron Paul), but given the inability of Obama to actually perform adequately as President, the choice is obvious.  I think Clint Eastwood was right, we need to replace those that don't work out.

USADA and the Ginger Hammer

USADA and the Ginger Hammer

One thing has bothered me about the Lance Armstrong/USADA battle, and now especially with it’s conclusion.  That is the total and complete authority of the governing body, even apparently independent of the US Judicial System, and the manor in which they act.  I guess I believe that in 1999-2005 he was doping, and can even believe he wasn’t caught during all the testing he underwent..  I also definitely believe that the USADA was carrying out a vendetta, and that Lance had zero shot at a fair “trial”.  But that was not the point.  It was clear with the evident joy in the USADA announcement that the Inquisition had brought the heretic to “justice”, regardless of whether fairness was employed.

I see the same template in the NFL.  Roger Goodell swings the Ginger Hammer, and Jonathon Vilma is sacrificed on the alter of the Shield.  The US Judge, who apparently is trying to find some legal way to overturn Goodell because of the unfairness of his actions toward Vilma, has not succeeded.   As soon as the Judge admits defeat, a triumphant Goodell will claim that as validation of his actions, and Vilma will be smitten (or is it smote?).

Goodell is the same as the USADA.  Confident in their unchallengeable power over the minions in their rule, they do not have to even feign fairness, since they know they are unassailable.   This is no different than a petty dictator (Saddam anyone?) who abuses power.  Or a Chicago Mayor.  Or a Homeowners Association president.  Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely (and it rocks absolutely – thanks Dr. Kirwan).

Guilty or Innocent, neither Vilma or Armstrong stood a chance.  That should make us all fear any consolidation of power at any level…

Hall of Fame

I tend to think that the Hall of Fame has been devalued of late.  I really only pay attention to pro football, but it seems whenever a player is very good, but not special, folks start hyping for "HOF" worthy.  In my opinion, it should be a rare event that all 5 slots are filled each year.

I am now of the age where I have some perspective of the players being elected.  ESPN basically lobbied for Michael Irvin, and it was sickening.  Brett Favre, please.  Favre was NEVER considered even one of the top two QBs playing during any year of his career!  He lost as many games with his gunslinger approach as he won.  I'll give you that he was really fun to watch, but he was never exceptional in the way that Manning, Brady, and even Rogers is now.

So what are appropriate criteria?  I would say there are two areas, excellence and impact.  To be considered for excellence, you would need to be the top player (or second) by consensus at your position for the majority of your career.  For any position - Punter to OLine  (I'm still unsure of long snapper!).

Litmus test:   Brady and Manning - no questions there.  Elway, Marino - obvious.  Emmitt, Barry Sanders, LT,  Prime Time and Charles Woodson,  Ray Lewis and LT , Reed and Palomalu.  No questions.  But McNabb?  Really?

I suggest the candidates be evaluated by position instead of by publicity.  The selectors should be forced to evaluate O-line and D-Line and Linebackers and wideouts for WHO WAS BEST, not just best known.

And Yes, Ray Guy should be in.

The other category is really "fame", or infamy.  Joe Namath was an above average QB, no more.  But the Hall would not be complete without him. Perhaps this is where Favre belongs, in this category.  But Pat Tillman does belong here.  And Lynn Swann.  Not the best, but the story needs to be told.

Just my two cents.

Ron