Politicians retire Rich; should that be?

A member of the House of Representatives, and a United States Senator each receives a salary of One Hundred Seventy-four Thousand ($174,000) Dollars a year.  Each gets allowances for staffing their offices, Office space and travel allowances.  And, of course, each gets status as well as the power to influence the actions of our Federal Government, including impacting our taxes as well as our individual freedoms.  Their performance is important to every citizen.

Some members of both houses have retired in the past couple of years,and more will retire at the end of this year.  A review of how long they served in public orffice, and their net worth on retirement seemed in order.

Senator "A" 18 years service,                net worth:   $2,794,024
Senator "B"  23 years service,               net worth:   $1,695,514
Senator "C" 12 years service,                net worth:   $2,668,017
Representative "1"  22 years service,    net worth:   $2,781,015
Representative "2"  30 years service,    net worth:  $24,290,511
Representative "3"    8 years service,    net worth:    $5,727,032
Representative "4"  35 years service,    net worth:    $1,348,011
Representative "5"  25 years service,    net worth:    $2,464,049

Whether these accumulations of wealth are legal or not is not my point.  Does anyone believe that these increases in net worth can happen of the Congressmen and women involved were spending their time looking after ever constituent equally?

Does anyone wonder why over the years none of these "accumulations" have come under Media scrutiny?

Is there any question about whether or not any of the accumulations (and expenditures) have not seen detailed audits and investigation by ANY legal entity or Inspector General(s)?

I cannot be the first to wonder about the ethics and legality of this sort of activity on the part of those who we euphemistically call "Public Servants.

Any ideas?

How to keep lies from destroying the American Republic

Whines!  Groans!  Cheers! Jeers!  Wringing of hands and dire warnings abound...all over the internet, with particular targeting of "Social Media."  THAT is a misnomer, if I ever saw one...it is NOT social and it is NOT civil.  Social media isn't even truthful, except seemingly by accident.  Not many "thinking" people disagree as to the falsehoods that abound on the internet.

The same complaint(s) are becoming rampant regarding the media, with particular attention on what is euphemistically called the "news" media.  The term "fake news" appears everywhere, both truthfully and falsely applied so often as to make the label ineffective as either a warning or a label (truth in anything, including advertising and public relations, is a rarity).

Politicians and their supporters (does that end up labeling over 90% of our population?) add to the lack of candor, having expanded their falsehoods from campaign promises to include actions and positions actually taken while holding office.

So...is this unacceptable?  If so, to who (or is it "to whom,"...I never did get that right)?  Is there any desire...a heartfelt desire...to change this and return to a more truthful existence for all of us?

It would be nice to believe that such a desire exists.  But...how?  Here are a few ideas to consider...and feel free to think up additional and (hopefully) even more effective ways to accomplish the goal.

First, the so-called "news" media have to be forced to tell the truth and/or label their lies as lies.

Second, internet posting of any kind has to be able to be tracked to the person or organization that is commenting.

Third, all media (including that labeled as "news") has to be made legally responsible for falsehoods.  It is time to, in the interest of Justice, to eliminate the qualification or claim of "absence of malice."  If a person in private life can be legally made responsible for libel and/or slander, so should the "news," whether it be broadcast or print.

Is there any real reason why our people, our country, our government cannot pass laws that require all comments, all stories, all reports be attributed to real people and real organizations so they can be held accountable?  Is there any reason why anyone should be free to repeat slander or libel just by quoting another person?  That should be unlawful unless the person or organization repeating the story has independently verified it with attribution...not anonymously.

Why shouldn't a person that defames another be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind anonymity of the internet?  Require that identification of those posting be available, so that there can be confrontation, both personal and legal.  I see comments on "social" media and in stories that, if the commenter were made public and had to repeat the comments face to fact, would never say the things that they have posted or written.

As I grew up, I was advised to live my life, and speak and write, as if everything I did and said could appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow; think and consider before speaking or writing or acting.  So many today thing there are no such things as consequences.  Or, if there are, that someone ELSE will suffer them.  It is time to stop that thinking.  Time for the chickens to come home to roost...

If the voters demand this and insist that the internet providers not be allowed to censure but that all who use the internet be identifiable and legally liable for comments and statements, we can again enforce a degree of civility.  But...we have to want to accomplish that and take action to demand that.  Will you?

Our Educational System is failing...but THIS is ridiculous!

We continue to allow our Educational System in America to deteriorate.  Objective evaluations show performance to continue to fall when compared to what students in other countries are achieving.  We literally do nothing about it...except to point fingers at people and factors other than ourselves.

The reality is constantly growing more apparent.  High School Diplomas no longer guarantee that holding one means that you can do basic math, spell most words correctly and recognize when you have to check a dictionary (do any young people even have one anymore, much less know what one is?), have the ability to write a coherent sentence or note with decent handwriting so that it can be read a half hour later?  High School Graduates no longer even seem to have had instilled a sense of discipline or the ability to concentrate on any task (other than "texting" others) for more than 45 seconds at a time;  they interact face to face badly, seemingly unable to communicate without using an electronic device.  They have not been taught the rudiments of "problem solving" or civilly discussing different sides of any given subject.

This results in Colleges and Universities being inundated by applicants that several decades ago would have been deemed insufficiently prepared to benefit from exposure to "higher" education and been denied admittance.  And parents would have recognized how inappropriately prepared such young people were and realized that to fund such would be a waste of money.  Yet...Colleges and Universities are well attended.  Why?

Our (Your) government has made loans easily available.  To the immature person, this seems like "free" money, since repayment is not until after graduation which fells like eons away to the new applicant.  These loans don't require a well defined "purpose" or "motivation" for so-called advance studies.  A young adult can "park" themselves in a University or College for 4 years or more...and the institution they attend welcomes the government money that enables them to fund all sorts of courses in what is a largely non-competitive environment for the faculty.  The presence of young people so ill prepared for what used to be the rigors of acquiring a University education required (and apparently continues to require) a down-grading of subject matter and grading standards.  Such a waste of time and money is deplorable.  But it is worse than that.  No longer is debate, challenge, or problem solving allowed, much less valued, in many Colleges and Universities.  News Flash: the real world doesn't have "safe spaces."

Why, you ask, this diatribe now?

When President Trump announced that he was going to discontinue DACA as a Presidential Executive Order, young people around the country walked out of classes, out of work and congregated to declare such action as being "cruel" and "hurtful" and even un-Constitutional.  AND they were joined by many of our elected Public Officials.   Apparently, our diminished educational system's deficiencies has already percolated to those holding public office!

How can I suggest such a thing?

The DACA program is only by means of a Presidential Executive Order.  It is NOT a law.  It is subject to the personal whims of whatever individual holds the office of President of the United States.  This makes it a political football with no real benefit to those it alleges to help...a very uncertain thing that leaves some level of fear in the minds and hearts of those who are subject to it.

By demanding that Congress act to codify DACA so that it becomes the law of the land, President Trump is working to make the benefits certain and sure, which would depoliticize the program, removing it from use to fear-monger those who are subject to the current vagaries of politics.

The President has given Congress 6 months to get a law drawn up and to present it to him for his signature...a signature that he has stated he would provide.  And he has further indicated that if there is some proven need for additional time to get this done, he is prepared to re-visit the matter.

Anyone with a REAL education, prepared to read, ask questions, research would have almost instantly realized that for those affected, this was a cause to demonstrate THANKS...not fear.  The fact that not one group realized the truth just emphasized how our refusal to redesign and rededicate our Educational System to serious education has resulted in what can only be described as a nation of indoctrinated idiots, with apparently no ability to think and evaluate correctly.

It is impossible to not think that this is the ultimate proof that our educational system is no longer remotely involved with educating.  It has failed miserably.

A Government may be legal...and still be illegitimate

The United States has just gone through an intense election and the European Union is seeing its member nations involved in an almost universal crisis of confidence in membership in that union.

Most of us have been angry, disturbed or perhaps just uncomfortable with actions that have been judged by our respective national justice systems to be legal even as we "knew" that they were wrong.  Sometimes this has been because of badly worded laws, sometimes because of very good defenses coupled with inadequate or inept prosecutions (or the reverse), and sometimes because it seemed as everyone was so very worried about the individual tree as the forest was left to burn or wither.

In America Free Speech, originally defined to mean that there could, with rare exceptions, not be prevention of the right to say something, has become defined as meaning that whatever and however something is said, there shall be no consequences for it.  That is just a perversion of the original intent.  No longer is it necessary to be certain that your speech is a truthful statement lest you be brought into court for libeling someone...say whatever you want.  This may be legal...but any sane person would suggest that such action should be judged as illegitimate.

The legal system in America has become a tool to enable people to avoid consequences for doing and saying illegitimate things.  Just one example is the treatment of those entering and remaining in our country illegally.  Our Constitution is a contract between its government and its citizens;  it basically establishes that the government will protect its citizens and the country's borders and the citizens will obey the laws that govern the land.  How on earth does any person or group who has NOT obeyed the laws of the United States get the right to claim that the government provide them the protections promised to its citizens?  Those here illegally come to the table as non-parties to the contract and, moreover, they come with unclean hands, having already broken the laws that a citizen, as part of the contract, agrees to obey and abide by.

In France, the people voted NOT to join the European Union...but somehow (who know by what technical legal maneuvers) they are a member.  The fact that France's politicians have done something that they argue was legal, does not make it legitimate.  All over the world, the increased ability to communicate without prior constraint by governments is revealing to the people that their governments are run for the self-defined elites of each country, that the citizens are being made to support the lives of elites who care not one wit for the citizenry.

Strange that the elites seem unable to understand why the people are upset, angry and growing closer and closer to violence each day.  How quickly the elites around the world forget the lessons of the Russian and French revolutions, among many others.  When the government(s) show contempt for the law or use it for their own privileged purposes,  why should they not understand that the citizens will see that they need to act in their own interests regardless of the laws, in the same way that the politicians have done to mistreat the citizens, to regain control of their own lives.

Those in power can only avoid "consequences" for so long before they must account.  And the longer they delay that accounting, the more extreme the consequences.

Have we become a nation of "victims?"

Once upon a time (and, no...this is not a fairy tale) America was a country full of people who "did" things.  Our forefathers never ever expected to be given anything; they expected to live or die on the basis of whether they succeeded or not.  And many did die.  The actual number of people that died as America was settled and then expanded west is unknown...at least I have never seen any estimate supported by good research.  Those who survived accomplished amazing things.

These people were of all kinds: kind, cruel, gifted, lucky and all sorts of other mixes of character traits.  The common trait, however, was that they had only themselves to rely on and that meant they had to take responsibility for the path that their lives took.  They were doers...NOT watchers.  They acted.  They acted to accomplish goals: to eat, live, support their family, to defend their family.  None of them...that survived...expected this to be done for them.  They didn't sit around waiting for someone else to support or protect them.

Very few people of that frame of mind exist in America today.  Those that do are vilified as cruel, unkind, uncaring and/or racist...in addition to many other terms of disrespect.  Why?  For two main reasons: 1. that sort of attitude is embarrassing to those who are supported by government handouts and if acknowledged as a good thing would leave the recipients feeling "less than";2. the politicians who use the "giving" of other peoples' money to those who don't achieve in order to "buy" their votes and thereby remain in office do not want that fact...or the fact that they usually never keep their promises...highlighted, lest they lose their position of power.  I can remember the days of the Community Chest and local Churches and Charities taking care of the "deserving" poor.  Yes...I said "deserving."  Because in those days every town and county had hard working folk who had disaster visited upon them unexpectedly and were as hard-working as any other member of the community...they deserved help.  Likewise, every town had some who were poor out of lack of effort or impulse, making a career out of looking for a hand out.  Those folk were never indulged...except for the "elitists" and Progressives in town who were rich and make themselves feel worthy by ostensibly giving funds to any poor person providing it could be done ostentatiously...in public.

Today's America is populated by an increasing number of passive and active "victims."  Almost half now receive money from the government that has no basis on their contributions to government programs, like Social Security.  That is money that was paid by the recipients over past years, and that is repaid by the government now on the basis of how much you contributed during your working and productive years.  No...I am talking about reverse taxation, unemployment, welfare and the like.

There was a time when a majority of people who found themselves in a position to have to take such support were embarrassed to do so; they knew that they hadn't earned it, and looked forward to getting back on their feet so that they could take pride in living off of what they earned.  No such embarrassment today; in fact, there is a certain pride and braggadocio exhibited by those who are "stealing" tax dollars from those who do work and pay the taxes that are so blithely redistributed by politicians.  And the majority allow this sort of attitude...even applaud it.  I find it disgusting.

The same goes for defending ourselves.  We allow the government to abandon guarding or enforcing our borders.  We make excuses to not hold those that attack us accountable, thereby keeping from having to react in any forceful way to eliminate such attacks.  A majority sit around as if there is nothing to be done...except to chant mantras and call for peace and love.  I remember a saying common when I was growing up: "God helps those that help themselves."  One didn't sit around moaning about something...you did something about it.  Maybe you failed, but you tried.  You didn't whine about it or mis-characterize it for some unrelated agenda item.  It wasn't about words.  It was about doing!  Victims whine.  Independent free human beings act, and take pride in that fact.

Too bad that America has forgotten how to do that.

How to equalize pay for everyone...

Our politicians have been talking non-stop about pay inequality.  They drone on about how the Middle Class is not only disappearing, but losing purchasing ground.  The claim that this is because of deficiencies in our Republic's practice of capitalism.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore that the classifications of "Poor", "Middle Class" and whatever the name is for those above the middle class but not a "one percenter" fail to recognize that the membership in these defined areas is always in flux; that people move up and on all the time.  Unlike Europe, any classification is not one that you remain in for your entire life...at least not in most cases.

But, back to the discussion of assuming that inequality needs to be "fixed."

I will tell you how to do it almost instantly.  Really!

Simply index the prices of everything that people buy.  You get a card from the government that identifies you "class" and that is based on your income.  All prices are indexed.  Food, cars, houses, vacations, insurance, bus rides, taxi fares,...everything...is indexed so that everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings for everything.  As an example, a Ford sedan doesn't cost $18,000.  For a poor family it might cost 5000, but for a millionaire it might cost $200,000.  The same approach with food too should apply; a Middle class family might pay $400 for a weeks food for 4, while a rich family of 4 would pay $2,000 for the same amount of food.  That way everyone would be equal, right?

So the "problem" is now fixed.

I don't pretend to discuss or identify how, under this kind of approach you would motivate people to work harder to earn more money.  I have no idea...but today's politicians seem to discount that as being important to our country or our individual well-being, so I won't spend time even considering it.  Tell you representatives about my idea...bet they love it.  Of course, I strongly suspect that if they enacted it as law they would exempt themselves from its application, just as they exempted themselves from application of the RICO statutes...they aren't 100% nuts.

Elections: looking for "my" candidate

Lying in bed the other night, unable to get to sleep, the question suddenly came to mind, “What would or should I want in a President?” Following shortly thereafter was the edited thought, “Well, what would or should I want in anyone that holds any public office?”

After a brief flurry of the time-tested adages...you know...things like honesty, ability, enthusiasm, and the eternal “wants what I want him to want” I decided to clear the slate and try (and I emphasize, “try”) to come at this subject from a different direction. So...here is the result....

The first major concept that I found comfort in was “He or she never looses touch with the electorate.” Someone really smart once said that a good leader knows to stay far enough ahead of his voters so if they wish him ill, they cannot catch him...but close enough so he can sense when they are about to take a hard turn and take it ahead of them, preserving the illusion of  leadership. The concept is not only true, but requires a truly dedicated, aware, intelligent person. A stupid person cannot do this. A narcissist cannot do this. Any office holder needs to have people who he will listen to that can give him accurate feedback on the attitudes and moods of “his” people...and the politician has to “want” to listen.  And he has to be continually looking for new people to do this, to avoid the insular stagnation of being separated from direct voter input.

But that is not enough. Sure, you can swerve with the crowd and appear to lead...but swerve too often and the voters will be forced to see the truth, that you are not leading but following from the front. They do NOT want that. So...what do we, the voters, want? I think we also want a teacher, a professor. NOT a dictator that talks down to us, but a person who is not only willing, but both able and anxious to explain the path that they would like to take, what its benefit to the voters will be, how it will work, how to tell if the idea works or not. AND, if he is unable to convince the voters of the wisdom of what he thinks should be done, then...and only then...change his focus and approach so as to represent his voters wants and desires, not continue blindly and run over his constituents.

And I want this person to be able to promise me that he or she understands all of this, is committed to it as the only proper way to govern and to promise to quietly and thoughtfully listen to voters if they feel that he or she has gotten away from this way of doing serving the constituency. Ideally, he would identify during his campaign 3, or 5 or ten, people that he trusts who he would listen to if they sensed that he was getting away from this promised method of representation and, if he could not correct his course or could not be convinced that he had gotten off track, promise to resign his office.

This kind of representative is someone I could respect even if his plan and concept of government was different from mine because his election would be the result of voters' decisions, not just mine, and elections have consequences. But if he or she does his or her job: reads the bills, discusses details with constituents, listens and reasons on behalf of his voters, and responds to and protects the concerns of his voters, his heart and mind are in the right place and he has earned respect.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found such a person. Perhaps none exists. But...I can hope, can't I.

"No" to politics, "Yes" to education

Just couldn't take it anymore...voted a week and a half ago and have been switching stations, turning the TV off, muting and otherwise just running for cover and my sanity ever since. They are all just like a combination of door-to-door subscription salesmen morphed into used car salesmen...they slip and slide all over, and they come with a host of supporters who are also as slimy(sp?!) as five day old banana peals mixed with seaweed. There has to be a separate, special hell for politicians. If they were in any other line of work, they all would be prosecuted under the RICO act.

Now...I recently had a series of conversations about the current state of education in this country. Is there anyone out there who can explain the reason behind a mandate that all children have a highschool education? I totally understand the desire to make it to all, but requiring it for all is illogical.

Years ago I suggested to a friend (who was a teacher) that I could solve all of his discipline problems in two semesters (I was kidding, folks, in order to make a point, so lets not have responses on this). Just constitutionally provide immunity for each teacher for killing up to 5 students and/or 10 parents or parental substitutes per semester per class...and have the right to trade for additional kills from those teachers who happen to have well-behaved classes.

The point being made is that non-motivated students who are reqired to be in a class are disruptive and take teaching effort from those who actually want to learn for no additional learning benefit to the person who is disruptive. And think how much better it would be for a non-motivated student to have to explore his or her options without a highschool degree (without the "thrill" of "cutting" class), learn to value it, and come back to an educational venue with that knowledge...ready to learn and perhaps to share with his or her peers and give them the opportunity to learn from those experiences without having to do it themselves.

And removing the mandate would take school from being a "forced" activity, against which it is "cool" to rebell, to being an sign of superiority and schievement, something to be valued, worked for, and an opportunity to not only be protected but to be taken advantage of.

Additionally, schools should insist on, and lobby for laws that require,respect for all teachers and other school personnel. Again, dismiss those who do not value education and educators until they can show that they have gained the "vision" of the value they are being offered.

Our insistance on retaining students is counterproductive and prevents teachers from helping students achieving to the extent of their abilities. Oh...on more point... The Constitution guarantees the of happiness, its achievement. Besides, the longer I live the more I am convinced it is not the goal but the trip that is to be savored.