Random political rants

1.  A mentally disturbed person goes berserk at a political gathering and kills and injures people.  These things do not happen because of rhetoric, political or otherwise.  If that were the case, these types of incidents would happen more often.  Discussions, disputes, and anger have been present in politics since this country was founded.  If venomous rhetoric was the cause, there would been many more politicians being treated for bullet wounds.

2.  Stopping demonstrations at or near funerals would be another step in denying free speech in this county.  It may be disrespectful, despicable, and somewhat malicious, but it is a Constitutional right.  If we aren't careful in defending free speech, we'll soon see censorship appearing elsewhere, such as classic novels. Oops.

3.  Illinois lawmakers passed a 66% increase in the state income tax rate.  It's a "temporary increase." I remember when the 2.5% rate was only tempory, then made permanent because "it really isn't an increase in taxes; just maintaining what we have now."  The same thing was said when the rate rose to 3% and then made permanent.  With the corporate tax rate also increasing, just say bye-bye to businesses in Illinois.  Neighboring states are much more business-friendly.  Perhaps lawmakers should be considering making substantial cuts in  padded State expenditures instead of trying to milk the taxpayers dry.

Some argue that Illinois' income tax rate is low compared to most states, but Illinois has a flat tax with very few allowable deductions (retirement income is one) except for the standard deduction and few tax credits.  Most other states allow similar deductions as those available on federal income tax returns and offer numerous tax credits.  The result is generally higher taxes in Illinois, despite the "low" rate.

4.  The State of Illinois does not tax ANY retirement income.  The State and its retirement system are in financial trouble. Yet, state employees continue to get generous pensions and benefits.  In fact, many government bodies give employees substantial raises their last four years prior to retirement so that the employees will receive larger pensions upon retirement. Even the re-elected governor gave substantial salary increases to his staff late last year.  (Pensions are 100% of the average salary of the last four years of employment - for the rest of their lives!)  Of course the lawmakers don't want to tax retirement benefits - that's a tax that would directly affect their own pensions.

5.  Residency requirements to run for office are a big joke, especially when it comes to Chicago politics.  Chicago election board and a Chicago judge ruled Rahm Emanuel met the residency requirements to run for mayor of Chicago, even though he hadn't lived there the past two years. Now you understand why Chicago politics and corruption are one and the same.

9 Questions to Ponder & Good Advice from Jefferson

Thursday Thoughts

Meg Whitman just settled the dispute with her former illegal alien maid for $5500.  You can bet that publicity loving, ambulance chaser, close friend of Jerry Brown, attorney Gloria Allred got her 50% of that huge settlement.

"Allred said Whitman and her neurosurgeon husband, Griffith Harsh, owed Diaz Santillan $8,000 to $10,000 for additional duties and expenses, such as mileage, beyond cleaning house. She claimed the maid was owed for grocery shopping, driving the couple's children around town and performing other errands during her nine-year employment. She did not release specifics about the settlement except to say that it did not include mileage."

Of course, Ms Allred makes good use of a photo shoot:

"Diaz Santillan's celebrity attorney, Gloria Allred, stood by and held Diaz Santillan close to her with one arm, never letting go. Another arm would have made it a bear hug."

Originally, the issue was that Whitman knowingly hired an illegal alien to work for her yet campaigning against the hiring of them.  Whitman claimed the subject of the maid was brought to public light just before the election in which she was running for governor against Jerry Brown and she alleged that Brown supporters (including Allred) were behind it.

Whitman denied she knowingly hired an illegal alien. She had used an employment agency which assured her that through their vetting process none of their employees were illegal.  When Whitman's husband had received notices from the IRS about Santillan's employment, Santilla assured them she had responded and resolved the inquiries.  Finally Whitman discovered that Santillan had lied about her residency and she immediately fired Santillan.  She even had documentation proving all this.  If she had kept employing her, Whitman would have been in deep trouble with immigration and IRS officials.

The media raked Whitman over the coals for firing a 9 year employee with no notice, and Allred milked it for all its worth describing Santillan as " like a member of their family."  Whitman was in a no-win situation - she did what she was legally required to do and her opponents spun it into a class war of big wealth against poor innocent immigrant (albeit liar) just trying to eke out a living in America.

Apparently Whitman was in the right, because there is no charge of hiring an undocumented worker and Ms. Allred had to find a way somehow to get paid:

"Dennis Brown, Whitman's attorney in the matter, described the $5,500 settlement as "routine" for this sort of pay dispute. He said the only reason the issue was heard was because there were no time cards involved and he emphasized that the settlement does not mean Whitman and her husband admit wrongdoing"

I am not a supporter of either political party, but I am sick and tired of this type of political maneuvering in which the public is manipulated into thinking that some crime has been committed when it has not.

Something very similar happened in the Illinois governor's race when Illinois current governor Quinn's supporters spent thousands of dollars on ads stating that his opponent had not paid any income taxes. The ads made it sound like his opponent had done something illegal or was skipping out on taxes due.

Quinn's opponent was a real estate developer and we all know what happened in the real estate market over the past few years.  His business had tremendous losses which wiped out any income he earned as a state senator and consequently resulted in a net loss (zero taxable income) on his tax return.

It all comes back to political parties (and it just happens that it is the Democratic Party in both these cases) using class envy as a way to destroy candidates.  It used to be that in this country women who rose up the corporate ladder were touted as heroines and businessmen who took risk, hired employees, and made money were admired.  Now people want to destroy them. 

You Go, Girl!

I dislike most politicians, but every once in a while someone comes along that I feel could shake things up a bit and change the system.

This year that person was Kristin M. Davis, a woman who ran for governor of New York, but sadly came in 6th of 7 candidates.  The masses simply are ready for real freedom yet.

Ms. Davis is a former madam of one of the prostitution rings that another politician, Elliott Spitzer, brought to public scrutiny.  As a result, Davis was convicted of promoting prostitution and served a four month sentence.  She contended that Spitzer was a former client, but he had been blacklisted because of his behavior to her girls.

She is no dummy: graduated from high school at the top of her class at age 15, got a degree from St. Mary's College, spent ten years working in a hedge fund starting as a trading assistant and working her way up to VP. She started her escort service at age 28 and built it into a multi-national $5 million dollar a year business.

"When I got out of jail I was broke, the government confiscated all of my money, I was unemployable because of the stigma prostitution has for women in the business but not men, and I was appalled after seeing both the criminal justice and corrections system up close. I began reading Goldwater, Hayek, Von Mises, Freidman and Ayn Rand."

She made good use of her time reading all the right books, in my opinion.


Originally she was going to run on the Libertarian ticket, but she refused to appear at their party's convention, and as a result was not put on their slate. So she started her own political party, The Anti-Prohibition Party.
Her platform included legalizing marijuana, prostitution, gay marriage, and casino gambling. Sort of the anti-Christine O'Donnell.

She made the candidate's debate lively with her one-liner wit and  blond jokes and ripped her competition with remarks such as:

“The key difference between the M.T.A. (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) and my former escort agency is I operated one set of books and I offered on-time and reliable service,”

“Businesses will leave the state faster than Carl Paladino at a gay bar.”

I hope we will see more of Kristin in the future. Although some may think she's a bit wacky because of her view, she appears to be one of the biggest advocates of real freedom in the political arena. And she has more brains, wit, and initiative than Christine O'Donnell.

Speaking of a different Marx

How close are all nations to Communism?  About 33% according to Gary North.

Three of the tenets from the Communist Manifesto:

"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "

As Mr. North comments:

"How is it that virtually the whole world has adopted one-third of a program that was so revolutionary in early 1848 that Marx and Engels did not put their names on the original German edition of their famous manifesto? One word: power."

Lord Acton said

" Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Regardless of party, politicians will agree that it's always the other guy whose power corrupts.

And so as the current wave of change in power arises this election season, I agree with Mr. North in his observation:

"When the Tea Party breaks publicly with points 2, 5, and 10 of the Communist Manifesto, I will be impressed. Until then, I remain an amused bystander."

What aging should be

At 88, she's been mayor for 31 years and the town has no debt. She may be a politician, but I think I like her despite that fact:.

Filtering the news is propaganda

On July 1, 2010 the government issued an order barring the public and the news media from coming within 65 feet of clean-up operations of the gulf oil spill without permission from the Coast Guard.   Anyone not authorized by the Coast Guard “must not come within 65 feet of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations under penalty of law.” Those who “willfully” defy the White House order could be prosecuted as Class D felons and face up to five years in prison and a $40,000 fine.

Here's an excellent op-ed about first amendment rights.  He raises an interesting point as to why the media only cries foul on first amendment issues when it pertains to media, but not to other entitites.

Finally he quits!

The only thing worse than a politician is a career politician. He hadn't had a real job since 1945.   If you're a politician long enough, you'll play both sides of the fence: yes, Vietnam War; no, Iraq War; no, Civil Rights Act; yes, KKK (apology later); yes civil rights legislation.

Nearly 50 years on the taxpayers' dime and  boastful of his tag line "King of Pork..." 

“I hope to become West Virginia’s billion-dollar industry."

This was not public service. This was a public disgrace.

Policing for Profit

The Institute for Justice's latest cause is detailed in this just released report on civil forfeiture, which includes a state by state grading system.  Asset forfeiture laws have been and are being used to beef-up police department budgets.  In case you didn't already know, the laws make it easy to confiscate private property without a guilty conviction.

 

The Institute for Justice was responsible for bringing to the national spotlight the issue of the misuse of eminent domain for economic development. If you believe in freedom, please donate to this worthwhile organization.

Rambling randomness

I've never understood why casseroles are so popular in the United States.  This one contains ground beef, green beans, tator tots, cheese and the requisite can of soup.  This is an exception to the proverbial "rose by any other name."  If you called this slop, no one would eat it.  Call it a casserole and it's a family favorite.  Fortunately not my family.  Perhaps I'm a snob, but I'd much prefer a hamburger steak, steamed green beans, and a baked potato with a small wedge of cheese (forget the soup) than this concoction. It would be a much more appetizing presentation and would not require much additional labor.

**********

Quote seen on Facebook Sunday:  "Tomorrow is the beginning of the second US Civil War."  People are not at all pleased with the health care bill.  Even if there is no second civil war, I think some politicians who voted yes will be in the unemployment lines after the next election.

**********

I don't condone the N-word, but in the 1960's Rep. John Lewis was a protester angry at people in power, so why is he intolerant of protesters who are angry at  him now that he's the one with the power ?

**********

I"m now watching Season 2 of "Damages." I think I enjoy this series so much because most of the evil, conniving people are baby boomers: Glen Close, William Hurt, Ted Danson, Michael Nouri and Marcia Gay Harden. Ok, I'm really watching it because of William Hurt, the star of all my early adulthood fantasies.

Unfortunately, he's put on some weight and hasn't aged well, but I still think he's a great actor, especially when portraying a brooding, soft spoken intellectual.

By the way, Happy 60th Birthday, Bill (March 20, 1950).

Bitter Feminist #1

My previous post stirred up some debate about the definition of feminist and the use of the word bitter in describing some of them. Therefore I will now occasionally post real-life incidents I have observed or read about of self-described feminists whom I consider (my opinion only) to be bitter.

Here is my first example.

A self-described feminist in an office setting tells co-workers that she is leaving to get a cup of coffee. A male co-worker in the office asks politely, "Would you mind bringing me back a cup of black coffee?"

Her reply : "I didn't get a PhD to serve as somebody's waitress."

This incident was told directly to me by the feminist at a dinner party. I asked her if the man was sarcastic in his request. She indicated no. I commented that perhaps he simply wanted a cup of coffee and since she was going to the break room... It made no difference to her, she thought the request was degrading.

Shaking bitter women back to reality

Here's an excellent essay that very well sums up my feelings about the modern feminist movement:

" If you weren’t so bitter about the broken promises of Feminism, you would be able to see the difference between Feminism and Women’s Rights."

The real reason Republicans won in New Jersey

In the modern world of an over-weight population, you'll never gain popularity during election time by mocking a chubby opponent, especially when Christmas is just six weeks away.

Government health reform

Until their wishful thinking dreams about national health care are dashed (so those incumbent legislators can get re-elected), those who truly believe in the cause should be doing the following:

1. Paying the health insurance premium for an uninsured family in their community.
2. Donating money to not-for-profit free clinics so that they can provide more services to more people.
3. Donating money to not-for-profit hospitals so that they can use the funds to pay the bills of uninsured patients.
4. Donating healthful food (not the crap most people give) to food banks to provide better nutrition for those needing help.

I have no statistics, but my educated guess is that most of the proponents of a government funded option do not or are unwilling to do any of the above. But they have no qualms in forcing everyone else to foot the bill of a national program.

The problem with a government funded "option" is that private insurance companies will reduce their presence in health care and eventually only provide catastrophic coverage. Why should insurance companies take on the expensive first dollar health risks of individuals if the government is willing to do so?

This is the very thing that has happened since Medicare came on the scene. Just try getting a private insurance policy for someone over the age of 65. It is nearly impossible. Unless that person is still covered under a policy through employment, there is virtually no option for health insurance other than Medicare. The only private policies available are Medicare supplement policies. Those policies provide coverage over and above the initial benefits that Medicare pays. The risk the insurance companies have is greatly minimized by the government funded program, so why would they include that coverage if the government is providing it?

Therefore if you're over 65, you are locked into the government program unless you are wealthy enough to pay doctor and hospital bills with your own money. The very same will happen if a government option is forced upon those under 65. The result will be NO options. Just government plans with, perhaps, private catastrophic insurance.

No marital right to more benefits

Massachusetts is challenging the constitutionality of the "Defense of Marriage Act of 1996," which the state believes discriminates against same-sex couples.

As I stated in a previous post, the issue should not be about the different treatment of same-sex couples from married couples, but the difference in treatment between single persons and married persons.


Single persons should be actively protesting along with the LGBT folks about preferential treatment given to married persons. Eliminating benefit extensions to spouses regarding health and retirement, ending the more favorable tax treatments to married couples, and other largess would end any controversies about married vs. same-sex couples' rights. Let all individuals have the same rights.


Marriage is a religious institution and/or a contractual arrangement between two (or more) people. Burial rights, health care issues, financial support, property ownership, child-rearing responsibilities, estate benefits and end of life issues should all be handled within that contractual arrangement. Family and bereavement leave should be negotiated between employees and employers. The State should have no power to regulate or over-rule those individualized agreements. If the State must have regulations (and that may very well be a future post), there certainly should not be one set of rules for married and one set for single people.


Therefore, employers should not be forced to pay for spousal health benefits, tax rates and deductions should be the same for married and single persons, retirement benefits should only be paid to direct participants or as the participant directs, and no additional exceptions or accommodations should be given to married people over single people, gay or straight.

This is a civil rights issue about equality for all people, not a LGBT marriage issue. It is the bestowing of preferential treatment by government rules and regulation that is the root of this problem.

Business in America

Sales of Atlas Shrugged have skyrocketed this year. Here is a good analytical comparison of the current state of doing business in America and Rand's famous novel.

Happy 4th of July.

Stuart Smalley wins.

By golly, people really do like him.

Al Franken finally was declared winner of the Minnesota Senate seat. His first proposed bill will require daily affirmations in every US household. Isn't it comforting to know the public keeps electing comedians/clowns to public office?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

Madoff gets 150 year sentence for his Ponzi scheme.

Who gets the 150 year sentence for the Social Security Administration's Ponzi scheme? Oh yes, the U. S. taxpayers.

No right to bare arms

Some in the country are abuzz about Michelle Obama wearing sleeveless dresses.

If she can bare her arms in the middle of winter, I say they're wasting energy in those government buildings and they need to turn the thermostats down like the rest of us must do. Cutting federal spending and saving energy should begin at the White house if this "energy crisis" is for real.

Mrs. Obama can wear a Snuggie if she is too cold. Then she would be the ultimate fashionista.

And speaking of Snuggies, here's something from a great Central Illinois comic strip The Dinette Set, by Julie Larson:

Roe v Wade Anniversary

36 years after the Roe v Wade decision, abortion remains a hot topic and those on both sides of the issue are steadfast with their opinions.

Before that decision in 1973, women had few options when they became pregnant. In 1969 my best friend got pregnant and gave her little girl up for adoption. In 1970 another close friend, also single, became pregnant and had to travel to California to get an abortion. Her fiance helped pay for the trip and the medical services. The only states offering legal abortions at that time were California and New York. Other alternatives these two had were raising a child society would then label bastard or getting an illegal abortion in unsanitary back rooms.

The decisions each of my friends made were difficult ones. Both anguished over how to handle the pregnancies and both took a great deal of time mulling over the consequences of the final outcome.

The one that chose giving up the child grieved every year on that birth date. The one that chose abortion still carries a feeling of loss and at one time blamed a subsequent miscarriage as God's revenge.

There are no easy answers with unplanned pregnancies, but women need to be able to have safe, legal options to do what they think in their hearts is best for them and their unborn child.

No government should have the right to tell any person what is the best decision for them or their bodies. That includes, not only abortion, but the right to die with dignity, the right to suicide, the right to refuse medical treatment, and the right to donate/sell their own body parts.