Paying for what we want.

           I came to a realization this weekend and it is so overwhelming that I felt I had to share it.  When the government is asked to give something to the people, it must raise taxes in order to pay for it.  To some of you, this is an obvious statement and you just said, "Well, duh," to me.  The rest of you need to take heed.  No one wants to pay taxes and we get our politicians to agree to cut our taxes.  We then turn around and start yelling that we want special programs to fix some problem, we want lawmen to protect us, teachers to teach us, soldiers to defend us, doctors to heal us, and roads to drive on.  These all cost us.  Yet, no one wants to pay for them.
          We have a deficit, not because our government can't do math, but because we the people refuse to.  We the people demand that our government give us all these things and while refusing to allow it to tax us.  The fact that our politicians are elected, leads to their desire to give us what we want so they can be re-elected.  This leads to a deficit as we demand bigger government oversight and lesser taxes.  You can't have both.  If we were to take the annual budget and ensure it was fully funded, everyone would have to pay their fair share.  For some reason, we the people have decided that those who were either born into money or made their own fortunes should pay for those of us who aren't as well off.  Tax the rich has become the mantra we live by.  We should be living by the standards of pay equally.  If every American paid his or her fair share we could kick this deficit, we just refuse to.
            I always felt that it was an obvious statement that you don't buy more than you can afford.  It always amazed me when the government continued to pay for things it couldn't afford.  Then I took a closer look.  I found out that we continued to expand to give more to programs people wanted and then gave them tax breaks because they wanted that as well.  And so we ended up where we are today, deep in a hole with only ourselves to blame.
          Allow me to make a confession; I am one of those that take advantage of our current tax system.  I have been receiving tax refunds for years and have actually been getting more back than I pay into it because of all the breaks and credits I receive.  I am at the low end of the middle class with four children and thus get a lot of deductions.  In other words, if we were suddenly made to pay our fair share, my tax bill would go up significantly.  I am still for paying our fair share.  We need these programs.  Our teachers, firefighters, policemen, and military need paid.  Our roads and infrastructure needs repaired, maintained, and built.  There are a ton of programs that we need to continue.  Sure, we could work to make them more efficient, and that should definitely be one of our goals, but we still need to pay for them.  We need to trim some of the excess, but we still have to pay for the necessary.
           We all have the same problem.  I call it the gimme syndrome.  We all want the government to ”gimme, gimme, gimme," just doesn’t want to pay for it.  You don't walk into a grocery store and expect to walk out without paying for your groceries, so why should we expect our government to give us all that it does without paying for it?  This is something we all need to remember as we move into this election season.  If a politician promises a ton of new programs, reduced taxes, and a reduced budget, you know he/she is lying.  It just isn't possible.  You can do 2 of the three but the other has to go a direction you probably don't want.  New programs and reduced taxes means an increased deficit; reduced deficit and new programs means increased taxes; and reduced taxes and reduced deficit means, not only no new programs, but a reduction in existing programs. 
             This is something every American needs to understand.  We can't end the cycle without understanding the truth of the matter.  We can't solve the problems by turning a blind eye and using wishful thinking.  We are supposed to be about equality, yet we continually strive to punish those who, using the rules established, have made their fortune.  In order for America to be truly equal and to have the same rights, we must stop the inequality in what we pay in taxes.  Be honest, what percentage of your income do you actually pay?  I don't mean adjusted or what the government says you pay, I mean the money that you get before anything is removed, what percentage of that, do you pay?  I am willing to bet that it is less than 10%.  Why should we throw a fit when a millionaire pays 15%?  Fair isn't fair when we use different standards.  That's my two cents.
               Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Why I hate Politics.

           The one thing I hate about elections is the never ending rhetoric.  The thing that is different this year than from 4 years ago is the profuse use of face book in the campaign.  This means I see a ton of posts attacking each party.  What it comes down to is the fact that there is no real positive message from any candidate.  I have heard a few statements on what they intend to do in office, but usually it is over run by negatives on either side.  It has become of a game of who is less evil instead of who is better and it makes me sad.
         The question is, if a law were passed that required a week of positive messages only during each campaign, would we hear anything from either candidate?  It seems that they have taken the old adage of "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything," and turned it around to say, "If you don't have anything good to say about someone, put it on air."  It is a sad state of affairs.  What really makes it suck is that it has become what people expect.  If we got a politician that was honest (yes, I know, honest politician is an oxymoron), I think people wouldn't vote for him on the grounds that he was too different.
       Speaking of honest politicians, growing up, I actually knew one.  He was our local state representative.  The story goes that he was first elected without campaigning because the people in his district knew him and felt he would do right by them.  He was a farmer and was one of the people.  Between sessions he actually returned to his farm and worked, politics was something he did as an extra duty and he claimed his profession as farmer.  You actually had to point out that he was a representative because he looked at it as a side gig.  The funny thing is, he never campaigned but he was re-elected year after year.  One year he even had an opponent.  The funny thing was the opponent got 5 votes, his, his wife’s, his campaign manager, his campaign manager’s wife, and the incumbent.  The sitting representative said he voted for his opponent because he didn't really want the job but would continue to do it as long as the people wanted him to and he was competent to do it.  He finally resigned at 82 or so and it was a loss.
       I used to say I was a republican and would never agree with a democrat.  I have sense come to realize that that mind set is exactly what is wrong in government.  The largest problem we have in our government is that we have become polarized with very few exceptions.  Either you are a republican or a democrat; if you claim to be independent you are labeled as indecisive.  What further complicates this is that if you have convictions and stand by them no matter what, you are a radical and a hatemonger; if you go with the current trends, you are pandering; and if you compromise you are a traitor to your party or an indecisive fool.  We have decided it is better to give negative labels to people rather than look at what their decisions are based on.  I would rather vote for a man that follows his convictions and votes against his party than for a man that follows the party line no matter what.  I would rather vote for a man that compromises to get things done over a man that refuses to listen to the opposing party because they are the opposing party.  We as a people have allowed this to happen and we as a people have directed it.  It is no coincidence that the very people we complain about hold the power to limit what we can do about it.  The saddest part is that the independents have very little influence.  They are such a minority that the only influence they have is when the parties are deadlocked and even that is rare.
            The one thing that makes this worse is that the politicians start looking at the next election almost as soon as they are elected.  Instead of looking at what this country needs, they are looking at what will make them look good for the next election.  The only regular exceptions are a second term president or a senator that has decided to retire.  It is a rare politician these days that repeatedly does what is best for the country over what his party wants. 
               Am I to critical of all this?  Maybe, but then again, if I weren't wouldn't I be like most of us who just take what the media gives us as truth and move on.  Sure, most of what the media says is true, but then a half truth is still true even if it isn't the whole story.  The media takes some flak, but most of it is directed at the "extreme" media.  Those sources that make no secret of their political leanings and jump on anything that helps their party affiliation are targeted most harshly allowing the more subtle sources to be taken at face value. 
               The most interesting part is that, with a little research, you can find the truth and it usually isn't what you are led to believe.  Both sides use statistics and numbers that, while true, only tell a part of the story at best or are downright misleading.  Take the "discretionary spending" argument used to cut the DOD budget.  In budget speak, discretionary means anything not specified by amount to be spent.  In other words, if the amount to be spent is estimated, it is discretionary.  Since caring for personnel (medical, logistical, pay, etc.) is estimated it is discretionary.  This means the department uses its discretion to ensure the people are paid and cared for properly.  So is it right to say that the DOD has a large discretionary budget?  Yes it is very true.  But then, by the budgetary definition of discretionary, teachers, policemen, firefighters, roads, electrical power, and the air traffic controllers are all discretionary as well. 
            The problem isn't what it means; it is how it is used.  The politicians use it knowing that most people will read it as the department has a choice on whether they spend it or not and thus can just cut it.  To most people, discretionary means that part of the budget spent on extras.  Discretionary means to them the excess after bills are paid, not the portion used to pay bills that are in flux.  If we used discretionary the way the government uses discretionary, our electrical, gas, water, grocery, and clothing would be a discretionary part of our budget.  I don't know about you, but I think I would be in a little bit of trouble if I just stopped using or paying for all of that. 
          I guess what I am saying is that we as Americans have to stop looking at the surface of what we are told by the media and politicians.  It is our responsibility to dig deeper and find the truth in what is being said and discover where it is we really fall on the issues.  What is said may be true, but that doesn't mean it is the truth of the matter.  A twisted truth may still be true, but it becomes a lie when it is interpreted wrongly.  Take the time to look into the truth.
        Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Candidate report: Obama.

          I find myself in a peculiar position.  The following report on Obama is not as in depth as I wish but I feel compelled to share it anyway.  I ask that you read it all before you dismiss it and comment freely if you feel so lead.  I delineate between facts, conjecture, and opinion at the end.  I did not list the specific sites for my research as I didn't write them down as they were found via google searches and those searches are easy to duplicate (e.g. name/net worth or name/voting record).  I used government websites for the most part for my data as I don't trust most news outlets to be impartial.  So without further ado, please read on.
            As I did what little searching I could, I discovered somethings that were not telling nor useful.  For instance, Obama voted along hte party line nearly 100% of the time.  The few times he didn't did not stand out as a stance in any direction.  In other words, he has voted as one who seeks the party's nod for office.  He has played politics almost his entire career.  his monet comes mainly from books he has written.  Books which, on the surface, appear to be politcal retoric and self promotion.  This isn't to say he is poor, at a net worth of over 2 Million, he is better off than most Americans.  The funny thing is, through all of this, I found a picture of a man that is a politician.  He has a law degree, but really hasn't practiced law.  He taught law in Chicago for a while, but that is something that most politicians do as they start their careers.  In other words, Obama is a career politician.  I haven't really seen anything that tells me he is anything other than the Democrat Party mouth piece.  Nothing I have seen or read has convinced me he has anything he personnaly stands for.  The things he claims as successes were either started by other people or given to him by his party.
             As I read what I just typed, I find myself amaazed that what I typed is almost exactly what you would expect to find on a republican website.  I understand a lot of it is conjecture and opinion, but then most of it must be as there is a lot of contradicting reports out there.  The few facts I found (net worth and voting record) came off of government websites.  As for my thoughts on the books, they were based on the wikipedia article for them (and we all know how highly regarded that is as a source) and thus I call my stance on that conjecture.  As I put everything I had researched and everything I have seen and heard in the past 3 years from both sides (I do have democrat friends), I came to a personal belief (read also as opinion) that Obama is not a man of principles so much as a Democrat that has done well in his party.
         One final thing I feel I should point out here.  My research is not as in depth as I would like it to be.  Through out his carreer he voted on literally thousands of bills (96% of the time he voted with his party), I only reviewed the ones listed as important and based my opinion on those.  I welcome anything you may want to add, I just ask that you note what is fact, conjecture, and opinion and include sources with your facts.  I am not above changing my mind or my opinions if the situation warrants it, but in this case, I don't think Obama is the one I would vote for.
           Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.