Sunday, February 27, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
All ye! All ye! In come free!
Democrat congressional representatives who have run away from their jobs to hide in other states, in hopes of avoiding a vote on contentious legislation, should lose their jobs.
When I managed people in business I had a rule. No show, no call, presumed quit. If they abandon their elected offices, and ignore the oath of office they pledged, they deserve to lose their jobs.
Indiana and Wisconsin currently have runaway legislators. In both cases they have run to avoid legislation they do not like. Inidiana has changed its pay policy, forcing those legislators to appear in person to collect paychecks, instead of getting the usual direct deposit. That will have some impact soon enough, but they should go further.
Running and hiding in the face of adversity is not a positive quality we like in our elected officials. Where's your dignity, man? Id' rather see fist fights in chambers than see your backside disappearing over the horizon.
I suppose that making mands for your return is even worse though. Drop certain bills from the agenda and you'll come back. Pretty please with a cherry on top!
Grow a pair wll you? You got elected. You toook the oath of office. You have a job to do. Just do it!
When I managed people in business I had a rule. No show, no call, presumed quit. If they abandon their elected offices, and ignore the oath of office they pledged, they deserve to lose their jobs.
Indiana and Wisconsin currently have runaway legislators. In both cases they have run to avoid legislation they do not like. Inidiana has changed its pay policy, forcing those legislators to appear in person to collect paychecks, instead of getting the usual direct deposit. That will have some impact soon enough, but they should go further.
Running and hiding in the face of adversity is not a positive quality we like in our elected officials. Where's your dignity, man? Id' rather see fist fights in chambers than see your backside disappearing over the horizon.
I suppose that making mands for your return is even worse though. Drop certain bills from the agenda and you'll come back. Pretty please with a cherry on top!
Grow a pair wll you? You got elected. You toook the oath of office. You have a job to do. Just do it!
Al Sharpton Offended by Truth
Today a billboard advertisement was taken down. Rev. Al Sharpton, and others, expressed their displeasure with the ad which featured a young African-American girl and the slogan “The most dangerous place for African-Americans is in the womb”.
The message is to bring attention to the fact that blacks represent 13% of the population, yet received 36% of abortions nationwide. In New York, 60% of black pregnancies end in abortion. If a black fetus has a 60% chance of being aborted in the city of New York, then the womb certainly is one of the most dangerous places.
"The billboard was offensive, especially during Black History Month," the Rev. Al Sharpton said.
Really, Al? This abortion rate is part of black history. And those aborted babies have no future either.
“This is an atrocity," said Darcey Merritt, 42, who is African-American and a professor of social work at New York University. "If a little person of color walks by and sees this, what message does that give about his or her mother, about other black people and their worth?" Merritt said. "This is dangerous."
First Mr. Merritt, that child walking by is alive, not having been aborted. Second, it tells the truth. The truth will set you free as they say.
The mother of the child pictured in the ad said she was “shocked” and wants an apology from them for being blind-sided like that. She had her three children photographed at a modeling agency two years ago, and knew the photos would become 'stock' images. “I was devastated they portrayed her that way” she said.
Mom, they portrayed her alive, and beautiful, which she is.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Farmers' Marketing
Farm subsidies from the federal government have been paid to farmers since the 1920's. They really became prevalent in the 1930's during the depression and the 'dust bowl' days. At the time they served a useful purpose. Most farms were very small, inefficient compared to today's standards, and there were many of them.
In the 1930's about 25% of the US population lived on 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 2% of the population livd on farms, and 157,000 farms accounted for 72% of farm sales. Farms consolidated into bigger and fewer farms. Technology meant that a much smaller percentage of the population was required to get the fields planted and harvested.
The subsidies gave farmers extra money for their crops, and garenteed a price floor. In essence, farmers made more money, and prices never dropped below a specific price. One 2009 report shows that 62 cents of every dollar the farmer took in came from subsidies, totalling $180 billion.
Corn is now subsidized to get farmers to grow it for corn ethanol, a replacement for gasoline. Rp. Jim Jordan, (R-OH) says the government subsidizes it, protects it with tariffs, and mandates its use, and still it cannot thrive in a rigged market.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year.
Many economists argue that these subsidies keep commodity prices artificially low, promoting poverty in less developing countries. Farmers in those countries cannot compete in the market with food produced at lower subsidized costs in richer countries.
Other critics argue that subsidies and tariffs protecting sugar have created more food ad lower prices that are less healthy to eat. Corn syrup replaced cane sugar as a sweetener of many foods which are higher in sugar and fats.
The last argument is that mega-farms receive most of the subsidies, providing more to companies that don't need it, and less to smaller farms that would need it more.
In the 1930's about 25% of the US population lived on 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 2% of the population livd on farms, and 157,000 farms accounted for 72% of farm sales. Farms consolidated into bigger and fewer farms. Technology meant that a much smaller percentage of the population was required to get the fields planted and harvested.
The subsidies gave farmers extra money for their crops, and garenteed a price floor. In essence, farmers made more money, and prices never dropped below a specific price. One 2009 report shows that 62 cents of every dollar the farmer took in came from subsidies, totalling $180 billion.
Corn is now subsidized to get farmers to grow it for corn ethanol, a replacement for gasoline. Rp. Jim Jordan, (R-OH) says the government subsidizes it, protects it with tariffs, and mandates its use, and still it cannot thrive in a rigged market.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year.
Many economists argue that these subsidies keep commodity prices artificially low, promoting poverty in less developing countries. Farmers in those countries cannot compete in the market with food produced at lower subsidized costs in richer countries.
Other critics argue that subsidies and tariffs protecting sugar have created more food ad lower prices that are less healthy to eat. Corn syrup replaced cane sugar as a sweetener of many foods which are higher in sugar and fats.
The last argument is that mega-farms receive most of the subsidies, providing more to companies that don't need it, and less to smaller farms that would need it more.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Check Please?
The issues with labor unions contributing to democrats, or corporations contributing to republicans, is something that many think needs to be fixed. McCain-Feingold was a piece of legislation that as supposed to have dealt with the issues of campaign financing. It fails in that goal. I have another suggestion.
Only registered voters should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns for elected office. Afterall, only registered voters can vote. Seems simple right?
Labor unions donate to political campaigns and expect favorable decisions when collective bargaining agreements are being hammered out. Corporations donate with the expectations of favorable taxation and regulation. Politicians who accept those donations often oblige, thus endearing themselves to the donors, and the cycle continues.
The result of such arrangements is public employee pensions which are unreasonable and unsustainable, or tens of thousands of pages of tax and regulatory documents which a team of lawyers stumble over and through. And we are all caught up in this.
This week we have seen teachers in Wisconsin call in sick, only to appear at rally's opposing the proposed legislation trying to insert financial sanity into the operations. Teachers, expectedly advocating on behalf of their students and education in general, cheat those same students out of education because schools were forced to close while teach argue for their own retirement benefits.
Limiting campaign contributions to voters, people, and not corporations, political action committees, labor unions or the like, would put the voice of the people back into politics. It would make politicians beholding to the people of their district or state. It would restore "by the people" to the nations business.
Only registered voters should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns for elected office. Afterall, only registered voters can vote. Seems simple right?
Labor unions donate to political campaigns and expect favorable decisions when collective bargaining agreements are being hammered out. Corporations donate with the expectations of favorable taxation and regulation. Politicians who accept those donations often oblige, thus endearing themselves to the donors, and the cycle continues.
The result of such arrangements is public employee pensions which are unreasonable and unsustainable, or tens of thousands of pages of tax and regulatory documents which a team of lawyers stumble over and through. And we are all caught up in this.
This week we have seen teachers in Wisconsin call in sick, only to appear at rally's opposing the proposed legislation trying to insert financial sanity into the operations. Teachers, expectedly advocating on behalf of their students and education in general, cheat those same students out of education because schools were forced to close while teach argue for their own retirement benefits.
Limiting campaign contributions to voters, people, and not corporations, political action committees, labor unions or the like, would put the voice of the people back into politics. It would make politicians beholding to the people of their district or state. It would restore "by the people" to the nations business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)