Category: Politics

It’s really quite amazing the information you are bombarded with in the morning, which is portrayed as news or commentary, but which is hardly newsworthy and as commentary is merely a restatement of the obvious.  Such is the case this morning with the words of Senator Mitch McConnell.  Senator McConnell recently appeared on the FBN show “Mornings with Maria Bartiromo”.  The Senator in response to questions defended the Republican Congress’ record.  He indicated that the Congress had sent bills to the President to repeal Obamacare and dismantle Mr. Obama’s initiatives.  He correctly stated these bills were greeted by a veto, which he knew he lacked the votes to override.

What the Senator said is true as far as it went, however what he failed to say is more significant.  This Congress as all Congresses possesses the power of the purse.  The Congress funds the government.   This Congress knows how the President will react to the bills they sent to him, yet they continue the same tactics in a lame attempt to convince the people, they are attempting to secure change.  What the Congress is actually engaged in is an attempt to insure reelection for its members, while doing nothing to stop the Obama agenda from moving forward.  The Republican establishment values holding office over progress on its legislative agenda.  Member’s futures are prioritized over the good of the country.

Where it could secure meaningful change is through the budgeting process, (the power of the purse) it unilaterally disarms itself at every turn.  Why?  It is a lack of true leadership in the Republican Congress.  There is a failure to spread the conservative message.  Now more than ever, there are multiple news streams available to get out the conservative message, yet they cower and pass omnibus and cromnibus bills, which embolden and advance the President’s agenda.  They believe the people are too ignorant to understand basic civics.   They accept the narrative that the executive is entitled to fund his programs.  What they have as a result of this failure is a populist Democrat, who has captured the Republican nomination for president.  They face a hostile takeover of their party.

Now they are engaged in a campaign to discredit their party’s nominee.  They accept all criticisms of their nominee, while overlooking the inadequacies of the Democratic candidate.  They once again are more concerned about the future of their individual members and unconcerned about the path of the country.  I am to a point where I say, who needs them.  They got Donald Trump because they won’t advance the people’s agenda of less government and less regulation.  They just won’t fight!  Now they will fight, but only against the populist candidate their incompetence enabled.

Once upon a time there was a political party called the Whigs.  When it no longer advanced the will of its constituency, it morphed and became the modern day Republican Party.  We have reached a point in our history where there is a far left party (Democrats) and a party concerned only with the preservation of its elite members (Republicans).  Perhaps we have reached a point, where a new organization with a different culture is needed.  Let’s start a true conservative organization promoting constitutionally mandated limited government and promoting candidates, who serve the people rather than serve for their own future.  Those, who believe in limited government, can come along.  Those, who don’t should find themselves in the refuse pile of history.  Failed members of an era of minority thinking and failed leadership.

Think about it.  We have run out of opportunity to elect new representatives in this primary election, but we have two years to prepare before the next full Congressional primary season.  Planning must start now!  A new party platform created and candidates recruited and financing lined up.  This time we need to be dependent for financing from the many not the few.  Good news is, we have many new and yet not fully explored platforms for securing support.  Social media calls!

Ask yourself these questions.  Are you satisfied being led by a northeastern valued Democrat?  Have your previous choices of a liberal northeastern former governor and “maverick southwestern senator”, who doesn’t understand the principles of limited government (Witness: McCain-Feingold), been the types of choices a limited government individual could zealously support?  If not, then let’s take the opportunity to repeat history and oust the pretenders!

The last post on this site was somewhat unusual as it strayed from what is considered retail politics and was more issue driven. One of the prime issues in this year’s election will be the economy. It seems that neither political candidate will seriously address entitlement reform. Each candidate is concerned with establishing their credentials with the east and west coast liberal urban voters.

You see it is poisonous to suggest there is trouble in paradise. Supporters of Bernie Sanders certainly don’t want to hear the message that any government entitlement should be cut during an election cycle where Senator Sanders is championing new educational program expansion. (free college for all) The soon to be coronated head of the Republican Party is hell bent on securing electoral votes from at least one Northeastern state, so you will see no plans that deal with entitlement reform from him. The message will be all is well, so much for tearing the system down. Establishment Republicans are content to keep any entitlement changes, which might be planned, under wraps during this season, lest they be accused of “pushing grandma off the cliff” again. Hillary Clinton is the last of the old guard big government advocates, so there will be no revision or curtailment of entitlements from her camp. Her slogan should be “Remember Single Payer! I had it first.”

Where does that leave us? I believe where we should be. We should be out front pushing for change by challenging assumptions in our own lives and acting to effect change in our world. (the real world) If we can attract enough attention, by our actions by moving the labor participation rate, then we can force the political class to concede the point that policy must change as the social demographics change. It’s time to address the demographics by changing entitlements to encourage senior work not on a full time basis but as desired. We are a society that is aging. We need qualified workers and trainers to guide the next generation of workers.

After we lead the way by moving the labor participation rate, then Congress needs to act to address antiquated rules that restrict employment and investment. Rules should be changed to conform to the realities of an information society. We need to understand that individuals, who choose to invest, are responsible for their choices and when abuse occurs, then it should be promptly and harshly addressed on a case by case basis. It’s time to demand that state prosecutors do their jobs, when the situation requires it.

Jobs will be created in an information society in many theaters. Workers will be needed to give advice and perform tasks. Investment will be needed and large banks are not the way to create small business. More and  less regulated local funding is the path to small business growth. Let’s put the state “laboratories of democracy” to work crafting information age solutions. Nineteen forties or even nineteen seventies rules have no place in a modern information society. It’s time to let freedom prevail.

We should no longer be shackled by FLSA. Our President believes he did a tremendous service by changing overtime rules for salaried individuals. These ancient rules work against hiring many seniors, who schedules may not conform to the typical work day or work week. He in keeping with his agenda believes he should decide what a desirable situation is. News flash, Mr. President, individuals decide what situation is appropriate for them, not the federal government. Still I am sure in a sluggish economy he bought some democratic and independent votes by his short sighted and short term pay increase. The net result of his actions will be a setback to the economy.

Let’s establish a web presence for experience. Let’s create a market for gray labor. “We can work for less and train others to be the best”. We can afford to work at what would be considered a discount for five to ten years, while collecting retirement pay. We can increase the participation rate, train young workers and still maintain the type of flexible lifestyle that years of labor have earned. My previous post I stated .that people work because it provides them with a sense of purpose. Let’s put seniors to work training the millennials. Education doesn’t end in the vocational or even the college classroom. It’s time to be the movement. Don’t feel the Bern. Change the system. If free will was a blueprint for our creator, then freedom should prevail in our society.

Now a personal note! If anyone needs a senior individual to help out with Microsoft Access and office projects and could use help with office procedure improvement, I am available. I have 13 years of experience and only need to be free to exercise and take the occasional ten day cruise. I’m flexible!

When you were in school, you were probably told to not believe all you are told, but view source documents. How many followed this advice? I can tell you in my experience few, if any followed the advice. As we age, we have an opportunity to reflect on a great number of issues. As we examine ourselves, we find we believe what we were told and what we have come to believe because of personal experience.

If you are like me, your earliest memories of work probably revolve around household chores or menial tasks, you were told to do. You complied at first because of threat of disapproval or punishment or maybe the offer of a reward. I remind you of this to make the following point. Your first impressions of work were probably not real positive ones.

As you gained experience in the “real world”, the tasks required of you were probably more challenging. Hopefully, your reason for work changed. Now you work and your reasons and rewards gained from work changed. Threat of punishment was no longer a factor nor did promise of reward act as the sole reason for your work. If you were like me, a sense of personal achievement and internal sense of accomplishment replaced prior motivations. You gained a sense of purpose. Your job, while still at times less than pleasant, was self rewarding. Still you waited for the day, when your time could be your own and financial concerns and a “job” didn’t monopolize your day. You were told retirement was the ultimate goal. Free time and opportunity for travel, hobbies and other pleasantries, you set aside would await you. You believe this is a desirable goal because you are feeling burdened by your daily grind and the prospect of more freedom is appealing.

This is the time to remember the words of the school teacher. Examine the source of the belief. The retirement dream was one born in another time, when jobs were unfulfilling and dangerous and relief from the physical grind itself was a reward. We live in a time with different national demographics. Concerns over the sustainability of many social programs, which retirees depend on, are in doubt. What is the answer to these concerns? Examine your beliefs. Is the retirement completely free from purpose even desirable? Perhaps the vast union hoard had the whole concept wrong. Perhaps people need work. Some can fulfill that need through volunteer work or a hobby, but for many nothing replaces work with real remuneration.

Is this to suggest we are all to be subject to endless toil until death? No, but more utilization of the experience of the senior population is sensible and is advantageous to both society and the individual. Our society today is employing more and more part time labor. Doesn’t it make sense that those with experience be utilized and incentivized more in what was formerly full retirement? This type of policy if properly incentivized could ease some of the burden on Social Security and Medicaid and still aid the senior and allow for more freedom in what was otherwise complete retirement.

Some will not want this. I say this is their choice. Examine your choices. Are you acting because you want a life style? If you are, then I say proceed. If, however after reaching the age you find a sense of purpose missing, join with me in requesting a choice in retirement. I think you will find an approach, which eases an individual into a partial work situation to be desirable for you.

Next time: Establishing a website for marketing senior experience. Leave a comment and let me know what you think!

Everyone has now accepted that Donald Trump will be the nominee of the Republican Party. Why Donald Trump? Republicans did not want someone to speak to them in “Washington Speak”. Future candidates must address the electorate differently, if they want their message to resonate with the voters. Voters simply do not wish to expend the effort to sift through issues and simply do not want to hear about the nuances of candidates positions.

Other Republicans candidates have done a poor job of communicating their message of limited government. The general populace believes that government is the answer to the ills of this country. They have had it drilled into them in both Public and Parochial schools. Public schools have pushed the message by touting the accomplishments of Presidents like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, (New Deal)Woodrow Wilson (League of Nations Proponent and Federal Reserve Proponent) and Lyndon Johnson (Great Society). These Presidents emphasize the federal government’s role in American Society. No wonder children and young adults leave the Public School System with an exaggerated view of the importance of government. Parochial Schools properly advocate the importance of Public Service. Lost in the translation of the Public Service messaging is the importance of the individual. It is the individual to whom the message of Public Service should be directed. Government has never been a good partner to Religion. Religion speaks to the individual and addresses its flock through the church not the government. Governments all too frequently are proponents of values at odds with many religions.

Churches should be wary of government especially socialist and communist governments. Realize that there is no consensus on public values. This country has differing community values depending on where you are and which groups you address within a community. It is this lack of consensus of values that mandates the power of government remain decentralized, so it does not trample the values of the community and individual freedom.

Socialism is a predecessor to communism. It is a stop on the journey. Socialistic societies rely on a government process to provide for many of their services and eventually own the means of production. We have already seen, when you rely on a centralized government to provide funding or even government direction of education, you get message the government sanction message disseminated to pupils. Since it is a government sanctioned message, it will favor the use of government action to accomplish tasks.

Look at the history in the former Soviet Union and China. Both nations promoted the values of the state at the expense of religion. Can anyone deny that both these governments were hostile toward the individual and religion? Why? Success of these systems is dependent upon adoption of a view that government is the cure for all social ills and the values of government should be adopted for the success of the society. Does anyone doubt this is hostile to individual freedom including the freedom of religion?

Look at the Affordable Care Act. It is just the latest example of the incremental creep of socialism. This law is lauded for its compassion. It expands Medicaid. This is another entitlement program for the poor or near poor. It increases the dependence of the individual on government. Government uses its taxing authority to force individuals to pay for this program. The US government uses the dollars position as the world reserve currency to insure the individual does not immediately feel the full financial impact of these services through a reduction of pay. (Tax increases) It cannot however stop the consumer from feeling some effect of the law. (Shortage of service providers as well as increased cost of services due to increased demand on the same or dwindling supply of services) This law attempts to guarantee services be provided. It replaces charity.
Charity is the private sector solution to providing services to those unable to afford it. It has been derided as unsuitable by great society advocates because it is not sufficient. (I.e. an entitlement, right) Charity, since it is not a guarantee allows more than one method of providing the services and can even require the individual to act in a certain manner to receive benefits. The individual however still has choices. He can opt not to act in the manner prescribed by the charity and not accept their services and look for other choices of charity. (There are many providers and could be more absent additional government) He is not forced nor is the charitable donor forced. There is undoubtedly room for growth, if government removes impediments to service provision.

Additionally, incorporated within The Affordable Care Act are provision for regulations which allow government to advance its agenda in areas such as reproductive rights, end of life services, treatments available and ultimately determining the value of a life. (I.e. perhaps an elderly individual should be given a pain pill rather than a procedure to alleviate their pain) So the government is able to foist its secular values on the individual and on religion by providing what is seen as a compassionate service.

Republicans do a poor job of communicating alternatives. Individuals fear uncertainty. Government solutions pretend that scarcity does not exist. Government solutions hide economic reality by pushing costs to the future. The Affordable Care Act does not provide any real methods to increase service supply or service efficiency. Government solutions instruct that the problem is too big for any solution, but a government solution, so dependency on the government is key. Private sector solutions rely on the faith of the populace in themselves. It is the antithesis of the Nanny state. Private sector solutions must be communicated in a manner that shows what is possible, if individuals act. It can be action of an individual or group of individuals acting in concert. It does not depend on the use of government force. It can be instituted without the assent of the legislature. It can be adjusted easily. What must happen to allow this type of action to move forward expeditiously is relaxation of regulation and ultimately state tort reform. The state action desirable, but not mandatory. Private sector solutions can advance provided the heavy hand of government does not intervene to protect the status quo. The challenge of Republicans is twofold: 1)Resist temptation to act to support those with an interest in preserving the status quo. 2) Resist the impulse to jump in with a government solution, when there are the inevitable failures. (Remember, government fails regularly, but is almost never held accountable.)

Communications about the new path of the country should be philosophical in nature. It should accentuate the positive aspects of a voluntary program in education, healthcare and other services currently provided the government, while making it clear that deficiencies can be rectified by individual action without the need to request the permission of a government entity. It is a philosophy rooted in faith in the individual. You must have faith that the individual, when left to act, will act appropriately. It is the antithesis of the tyranny of the majority currently practiced by Washington.

Freedom of choice is the end product. There is no tyranny by a government or even a tyranny by a well intended democratic majority. It is the path of the almighty, who allows free will to all. It affords an opportunity for the individual to express his or her best instincts.

There comes a time, when an individual can no longer merely be a casual observer witnessing events, but is required by circumstances to speak out or bear the blame for the evil outcome, which he supported by his silence  I have witnessed a government intervention, which has succeeded in reengineering the basic unit of society, the traditional nuclear family.  That same government seeks to mandate that we not only acquiesce in its social engineering experiment, but celebrate the destruction this reengineering scheme has wrought.  I can no longer sit silently by and witness the continued destruction of my country’s social and political culture without raising my voice in outrage.

It is time to for all, who believe in traditional American values to voice their disapproval of this social engineering scheme. Begin by educating your children and family members that procreation absent a marital commitment is deviant and unacceptable behavior, which inflicts irreparable harm on the children of these relationships.    Insist that your Priests, Ministers or Rabbis and any other clergy express their support for the traditional family from the pulpit. Show your displeasure with the direction of the political culture through at the ballot box. Contact your Federal Representatives and Senators and insist on a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.   Spread the word to anyone, who will listen that you do not support and will not accept this newly engineered social order and that you have traditional values deeply rooted in nature, history and religion, which cannot be compromised for political expediency or personal gratification.

I have witnessed the systemic destruction of the nuclear family by my government and its replacement with the universally accepted and celebrated single parent household.   I have been warned by my government and media that it is inappropriate to judge these newly created family units by my old religious value system.  After all the individuals are merely acting in a manner, which promotes their personal satisfaction.  The sexual revolution has freed men and women from the slavery of traditional marriage.

If this meddling in the natural order was not sufficient, big brother government inserts itself between the biological parents.   It through its policies and programs alienates children from the parents with the promise of financial independence or reproductive freedom.  Government creates vast bureaucracies, which promise to support, feed and act in loco parentis.  

Government is no one’s parent.  It cannot replace a father and mother.  Politicians and bureaucrats do not know you or your family.  They may not even share your core values.  They cannot act be allowed to substitute their programs in place of the parents.

Unelected short sighted public administrators laud the new poverty programs as economic growth vehicles because money is borrowed by the federal government and pumped relentlessly into the community.   Rules are promulgated and social agencies are utilized to secure acceptance of the new order.  These rules are justified as necessary for individual safety and the maintenance of societal order.  

Government Attorneys are dispatched in droves to secure financial support for these new unsustainable societal units.  Insuring financial support for dependents is a noble charge, but the result this government intrusion is all too often a splintered more severely dysfunctional family unit.

All of these actions are well intentioned and justified by proponents as actions necessary for personal freedom and poverty alleviation.  The societal chaos, which ensues, pits parent against parent and child against parent.  Yet in the wake of vast deficit spending, the poverty still persists and families are torn asunder.  Individuals are heard in the midst of all these noble intentions to decry their newly created social position.  The newly anointed heads of household and their minor charges lament the diffusion of responsibility, which gave rise to and perpetuates this unnatural social existence.

I have personally witnessed multiple religious based program graduations, where estranged young adult males vowed to be better fathers for their children in the future.  Almost to a man each recounted that there was no paternal role model in their home, when they were growing up.  They do not know how to be a parent or how to maintain a traditional family relationship.  The cycle is continued with them.

What is the answer?  Surely we cannot simply allow those society encouraged to embark into these new arrangements to do without and become part of a permanent underclass.  We start small.  We begin by no longer celebrating and financially promoting these single parent arrangements.  We educate the youth that the family is the natural basic unit of a society.  We promote personal responsibility starting in the home.  We reward marriage.  We should encourage marriage between parents even when that commitment occurs post child birth.

We reform some laws to conform to the natural social order.  We formulate a tax structure that doesn’t punish lifelong commitment.  We remove the government from family decisions.  WE accept gifts between parent and child as tax free exchanges at any age, where there is no ongoing commerce involved.  We employ a tax structure that allows parents to assist their offspring at an age with no income reporting requirements except in those rare instances where there is intent to defraud a government program with a wealth transfer.  Wealth exchanges of this type are a family matter not a government revenue source.  Let me be clear.  There should be no gift or income tax consequences for traditional family wealth transfers except where the exchange is done to defraud a government entitlement program.

If this tax strategy is employed, government will benefit in the long run because it will have less individuals dependent on its services.  We should also allow wealth to pass from parent to any age child without tax consideration upon the death of a parent.   Children and spouses are the natural recipients of an individual’s wealth upon death. The government doesn’t need to use families to raise revenue and if some excessive revenue is deemed to pass from parent to child, it is the price we pay for upholding the natural order.

We should require grounds for divorce, where children are present.  Except in the case of financial or domestic abuse we must remove the government from familial interactions.  We should encourage parents to first work out their finances without any government involvement.  Where parental cooperation is lacking and intervention is needed we should utilize churches and community organizations wherever available to assist.  Parents frequently will not work together, when there is a government alternative, which is easier and is often seen to favor one side over the other.

Where severe financial deprivation occurs, society must provide immediate necessaries on a short term basis only, but it must also afford the parents the opportunity to resolve the deprivation.  Provision of necessaries by the government should be short term temporary assistance and it should be repaid by both parents, when they become financially solvent. Current law encourages the creation of vagabond children, who stay with various relatives until the government assistance is no longer available to the possessory relative then the children are moved on to a new assistance providing relative.

If financial deprivation persists, more drastic remedies should be employed including criminal sanctions against income producing non providing parents and as a last resort consideration should be given to removing the children from that environment until the parents demonstrate their ability and willingness to support them   All remedies to assist families should be employed by local and state governments exclusively.   Regulation of families is not a power granted to the federal government.  The health and welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution is not an independent grant of power to the federal government.  The Tenth Amendment must mean something!  All inclusive federal regulations and funding have promoted dependency and encouraged the unacceptable culture we own experience.

Speak up at home and in your community!  Promote personal responsibility even when it is uncomfortable.  Sometimes it is imperative that you speak to prevent harm to your family and community.  Educate the young that the nuclear family is the basic building block of nature.  Listen to those, who are running for office, whether it is federal state or local.  Do they share your values?  Do their solutions always involve use of government force first?  If so, consider the long term social engineering consequences of supporting such a candidate.  Families are a naturally occurring phenomenon, not a creature created by government rules and government intervention.  If you encounter a candidate or policy that runs contrary to your traditional values even within a party you ordinarily support, speak out against the individual or policy.  Don’t contribute to the evil.