How Do You E-File a Vial of Piss?

States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare -NY Times 10/11/11
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

First of all, there are many ways to receive money from the government aside from "welfare" which is a word that should be barred from the English language as it is far too much of an umbrella word. The welfare that most people gripe about was eliminated in the 1990's in a bi-partisan act led by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Virtually all cash benefits are targeted to children, the severely disabled and the elderly. You can't just sit home and 'collect a check' - that is a complete falsity.

Second of all, government money goes to almost everyone ... should we drug test everyone that gets a mortgage interest deduction? Corporate subsidies? SBA loans? Maybe those people are also 'using the money to buy drugs.'

Stupid.

Lastly, when will people ever realize that 'starving the beast,' whether that 'beast' is a drug addict, an uninsured sick person or a hungry adult literally means that you are casting those people to the street. The street that you live on.

So I ask those who are only interested in themselves: Where would you like those in need to go? What will you do when the needy have sleep outside your door or are forced to break your windows to steal food? Would that make for a better world to you?

It's so damned stupid. And I for one am really sick of it.


- Gary Waldman 10/11/11

'Direct Representation' Won't Help

In any endeavor, when a fundamental paradigm is found to be wrong, the only reasonable course of action is to replace it. I therefore propose a federal budget largely built on a new paradigm of "Direct-Democracy Earmarks" — the people themselves directly selecting the departments and programs to be funded. Every adult citizen would independently allocate an equal share of total federal discretionary spending.  
by Fred Drumlevitch
www.FredDrumlevitch.blogspot.com
October 3, 2011

Well, Mr. Drumlevitch, I can only applaud your enthusiastic calls for such 'direct' democracy even though the Constitution calls for a 'Representative Democracy' so your idea will take a major, major amendment to implement. And that is never going to happen.

Worse yet, it won't help. The 'bought' politicians will still have complete control with your system because, well, who chooses what the public gets to vote on? Someone has to present the proposals in the first place which means that the Congress will still have complete control over spending. Nowadays even our representatives only get to vote on bills that the 'leadership' support and put before them. 300 congressmen could support a spending bill, but if the Majority Leader & the Speaker don't put it to a vote, it isn't going to happen.

There is only one answer to your quest for more direct representation. Get The Money Out of Politics. It is the poison that enables a tiny fraction (the 1% most fortunate) of the population control our government.

Gary Waldman 10/7/2011

Hello, I'd Like to Rent Niggerhead, Please?

10/3/2011 NY Times Comment #106 - The name long predated Perry's membership. It was folk-historic; you can't rewrite history. He didn't name it and it was changed. He doesn't own the camp.

OK. He didn't name it. The name long pre-dated his membership. OK.

Would you rent a leisure property named Niggerhead? Jewhead? Faghead? Spic-head? I wouldn't. Nope. No way, no how. Even if I could someday 'paint over' the name. Nope. Wouldn't want to either be associated with that in any way, nor pay money to anyone who did.

Maybe if it were the only possible way for me to have a roof over my head. But for 1,000 acres of hunting land?

Sorry. Not important enough a deal. And I don't consider myself nearly 'squeaky clean' enough to run for President.

- Gary Waldman 10/31/11

Can the Press Please Take a Side for Once?

RE: Mr. Bernanke’s Warning

Washington needs to stop the political antics and focus on housing and jobs.

Can the press stop this charade in its attempt to shield itself from accusations of a liberal bias? It is very obvious what happened this summer as economists and other experts predicted for many months leading up to it: the mere threat that there was any possibility of a U.S. default was cause to rattle the world markets. And that threat was 100% synthetic and created by the Republicans in Congress as prodded by the Tea Party. The credit worthiness of the world's largest economy was denigrated simply because a rogue group of rebel rousers insisted they get their absolute way on routine budget matters. And said rebel rousers scared those in their party who know better with the threat of primary challenges. Since their 2010 mandate (and an impressive one at that) was hardly enough to empower them with such absolutism, they knowingly chose to use a very, very dangerous weapon, American credit-worthiness, for leverage. And it was a terribly irresponsible thing to do.

Although we are all (left, right and in-between) disappointed with the performance of those on our \"side,\" and for many reasons, this was NOT the fault of the entire U.S. government. The President and the Democrats in Congress had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that this entire debacle happened in the first place.

The press has a responsibility to report the news and we celebrate those whose reporting is non-biased. But it is not taking sides to simply tell it like it is. And it is unfair to the vast majority of voters who are not immersed in every detail of the news. Those who take the time to read the first few pages of the daily newspaper and watch the evening news should be allowed access to more accurate information even if it is somewhat 'uncomfortable' for the corporate editorial boards.

They didn't win every seat!

We keep hearing over and over about how the "American People" (as if it were all 300 million of us) made their voices clear in the 2010 elections and that gives the Tea Party the right to make such ridiculous demands.

435 House seats were decided in those elections as was control of the U.S. Senate. The Republicans did not win every seat in the House ... the Democrats won 193 of those seats and retained a majority in the Senate.

Sure the Republican party was granted a tremendous amount of 'influence' on Capitol Hill, but they were NOT given 'control' of the entire U.S. government. Their influence has won them a tremendous amount in these arguments as not only has the other side agreed to tie a debt ceiling vote to deficit reduction in the first place, but also to massive spending cuts and the exclusion of revenue increases.

When the Republicans convince the American people to elect them to a majority in both houses and regain the Presidency, they can attempt to exercise the 'control' they believe they deserve.

Even then, as Democrats learned early in 2009, the other members of Congress still have a vote. If they didn't we would now have single-payer health care and we would have had a much, much larger stimulus.

When the Republican party wins 435 House seats, 100 Senate seats and the Presidency, they will have the rights they think they have now. Until then, the rest of us still have a voice.

The loopholes of cluelessness

We will continue our downward spiral with gaining momentum if the Democratic party continues to fail so miserably in the message wars. I just cannot comprehend why lawmakers whose ideology is on the right side of history, public sentiment (overwhelmingly) and otherwise proven economic science cannot win any argument and therefore must constantly employ the policies of the other side in order to get anything done.

Perfect case in point: yesterday's Presidential address in which he calls for, of all things, a 'tax credit' for businesses who hire returning war vets. A TAX CREDIT? This is your plan in the midst of trying to convince the public that we need to close loopholes and spending in the tax code? Every loophole was once a new 'tax credit' or deduction meant to stimulate a certain sector of the economy. Yes, the motive is noble without question, but the method is ridiculous in this political environment.

The immediate cost to the government would be equal if this investment was designed as a spending program. But the cost to the long-term debt is exponentially higher if it is designed as a tax credit. What happens when these wars are long over and the economy (hopefully) recovers? A tax credit will continue to cost the government money in perpetuity as tax lawyers successfully lobby that it also applies to 'this' & 'that' hire thereby making it yet another senseless corporate 'loophole' whose elimination will be considered a 'tax hike' by fiscal 'conservatives.'

If it were designed as a spending program, once it has achieved it's admirable and currently necessary goal it would be among the first items eliminated in some future negotiation to cut spending.

The Democrats (via our current President) are once again playing into the hands of a political party that has no true concerns about debt & deficits, only lower taxes. How can smart people be so stupid?

-GSW 8/8/11

Cutting means cutting ... there's no demanding the DEMAND for new jobs!

The answers coming from Washington are completely off the mark. The problems are both simple and very, very obvious. Technology has vastly decreased the amount of employees necessary to provide goods and services (irreversibly) & the demand for goods/services is very low because the middle class (U/L) are pinching pennies.

Let's be honest. No one is going to hire a new employee simply because they have more money due to a lower tax rate. Furthermore, no business that can afford to hire a needed new employee will chose not to do so because they fear the government is over spending on Medicare (as an example). Businesses large and small will hire a new employee only when there is a job that would not get done without doing so - the cost factor comes in second. If there is reduced demand for goods and services, there is a reduced demand for employees regardless of how much the employer has to spend. This is virtually scientific.

Yet we continue to buy the Republican talking point that reduced Federal spending will create jobs? Cutting spending means CUTTING jobs. Period. When the government cuts back it does so via layoffs. Notwithstanding one's preference for private vs public sector jobs, the balloon-like consequences are enormous. When a government employee loses their job they cannot support the businesses in their community & the result is the loss of private sector jobs. Likewise, when the government scraps a 'project' then the private businesses in that community suffer terribly.

A fair tax code, where profits (translation: the money bred of a successful transaction) are taxed at a rate ample enough to be redistributed throughout the economy via new business loans/support, AND government spending on infrastructure, defense, health care, transportation, safety regulation, emergency response &  the care of those who simply cannot care for themselves is simply the only way an economy as large as the United States' can function properly.

-GSW 7/8/11