Leaders Out Of Touch With Economic Reality

Politico reports that almost half the members of Congress are millionaires compared to just 1% of the subject population that they rule.   Could this be one of the reasons why the Washington elite is so out of touch with the concerns of the average American?

The economy and pocket book issues are the main concerns of the electorate, regardless of whether they are currently employed or not.   The unemployed see their ship sinking rapidly and those still employed are seeing their standard of living decaying at an alarming rate.   While the average down on his luck American is worried about basic daily issues, the elite rulers of Washington are busily engaged on planetary quests to reduce carbon emissions and tell other nations how to conduct their affairs.    The recent election results prove that voters believe that their basic concerns are not even on the “to do” list of the Washington elite.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.

“Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal.

Do The Obese Have The “Right” To Become More Obese?

In an attempt to help those who cannot help themselves from becoming obese, the government has implemented new legislative fiats requiring restaurants to post the calorie count of each item on their menus.   Unfortunately, the heavy hand of government dictate is producing counter productive results.  Consider the following study showing that forcing restaurants to post calorie information has actually had no beneficial impact but instead, has perversely resulted in consumers consuming more empty calories, not less.

After Calorie Warnings, Diners Order More Calories

Before food czars get any more punch-happy on their own Kool-Aid, they need to be purged of the illusion that their laws are actually working. Last month, New York University and Yale medical professors published a ground-breaking study, which shows that New York City’s law requiring fast food chains to post calories on their menus doesn’t reduce their customers’ caloric intake.

Sixteen municipalities including California, Seattle, and Portland have passed laws similar to NYC’s, and the Menu Education and Labeling Act, which would impose labeling regulations nationwide, is pending in Congress.

But the researchers’ most striking finding was that customers actually ordered more caloric items after the law went into effect than before, despite the fact that nine out of ten customers who reported using the information said they made healthier choices as a result of the law.

But the problem may also be more complex. It’s possible that people who are less educated may actually think they are eating more healthily than they are notwithstanding the calorie numbers staring them in the face.information and that 15% said they used it. But these figures demonstrate the law’s failure—not success. Despite the fact that people were readily presented with

The Department is boasting that 56% of customers saw the caloric the nutritional information, 85% of them ignored it.

The lawmakers who enacted the calorie posting regulations succumbed to the fallacy that everyone thinks like them. They probably reasoned that because they would make healthier choices if presented with nutritional information, everyone else would as well. But maybe what consumers actually want is a delicious meal at a low price.

So what’s the next step for an imperial government gone mad with regulations and micro control over the lives of their disconnected citizens??  You can see the next step coming.  For those of us unable to think properly, based on bureaucratic notions of proper eating habits, the only option left is to impose more draconian rules.  If fat people can’t stop themselves from gorging on food, the next logical legislative fiat would necessarily involve requiring restaurants to forcible eject or refuse to serve those individuals that the government “deems to be obese”.

I wonder how that will work out?

With apparently little of consequence to do for the people she allegedly works for, the Secretary of State has spent considerable time and a large amount of taxpayer money planning a “Plaque Monument” to her greatness.   FYI Madame Secretary - usually monuments are erected after a popular consensus has been reached that someone deserves to recognized.

The Washington Post reports on the Secretary of State’s outrageous efforts to immortalize herself.  The story starts when a Clinton shrine (including the notorious 800 pound plaque) erected by the US Agency for International Development was later removed by the Bush Administration and put into storage.    Soon after the election, Madame Clinton with plenty of free time on her hands, went right to work on - you guessed it - restoring her monument.

I was quite honored upon leaving the White House to have a plaque put up in the lobby recognizing my work,” she said. “And if anybody knows where that plaque is — [laughter and applause] — you know,” Clinton playfully smiled, looking at someone just off the stage to her right, and shrugged, “I’d just love to see it again.”

So, for an estimated $40,000, the agency was preparing to schlep the holy plaque back and put it up next week on another wall in the lobby. The photos of her travels won’t be returning, but who needs them? After all, a large photo of the secretary sits at the agency entrance, alongside President Obama’s and Vice President Biden’s.

Then Thursday afternoon, hours after we made inquiries, we got word from a State Department official traveling with Clinton in Pakistan that, no, the plaque’s not going up. “The secretary prefers that public funds not be used for this purpose,” we were told, “and if USAID wants to restore the wall, it should pursue private funding.”

How’s this for an idea?  If the multi-millionaire Secretary really feels she needs a monument, why doesn’t she pay for it herself?   An even better idea would be to dedicate herself to serving the country in a more meaningful manner.

Rulers Out Of Touch With Reality

While millions suffer economically, the Speaker of the House sees fits to commute in a private Boeing 757 at a weekly cost of $120,000.  Brings to mind the old saying “watch what they do, not what they say”.

The ruling elite in Washington is out of touch and out of control,  interested primarily in furthering their financial well being and imperial life style.   This one example of outrageous conduct by an elected official was exposed by The Burning Platform (follow link for full read).

The hypocrisy of the ruling elite in Washington DC is breathtaking. Why can’t Pelosi fly coach to California? What makes her better than you and me? The attitudes and practices of our rulers are disgusting. 20% of the U.S. population is unemployed and this woman has the gall to spend $120,000 per week to jet back and forth across the country. This is utterly putrid.

Since she only works 3 days a week, this gas guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California , cost to the  taxpayers of about $60,000, one way! As Joe put it, ‘Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday night.’ Cost to us another $60,000.

Folks, that is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to the taxpayers of  $5,760,000.

Who The Hell Will Work For $15 A Day?

No, this is not an advertisement for help by some Chinese assembly plant - this is a job posting by local and federal courthouses.

Call to Jury Duty Strikes Fear of Financial Ruin

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — One by one, jurors answered Judge Robert A. Rosenberg when he asked whether serving a trial of four to five weeks would be a hardship. Chemelle Charles, a nurse, said it definitely would: “I’m the only one working in my house right now.”

Ranae Johnson, the jury commissioner for Bonneville County, Idaho, said that she typically summoned 400 people for each two-week term of service, but that lately she “had to pop it up to 500” because of rising numbers of economic hardship claims. “We’re hearing it more than we used to,” Ms. Johnson said. “A lot more.”

She read from her notes of recent calls. “I was laid off, have no car, no job and no friends that can even bring me there,” one caller had argued. Another said, “I cannot even afford the gas to have to come down there.”

Judge Rosenberg, in Florida, said in an interview that when the “pervasive cloud of financial insecurity” reaches the jury room, “a judge has to be sensitive to the economic times.”

Judge Rosenberg agreed. He could force more jurors into the box than he does, he said, but a miserable juror who is straining to get back to work might be too eager to reach a quick verdict instead of engaging in a full and careful deliberation. “That’s not the juror you want,” he said. “That’s not justice.”

“We might actually have jurors who are looking to get the money,” Mr. Benefiel said, which amounts to $15 a day for the first three days and $30 thereafter.

Is Justice Being Denied By Underpaying Jurors?

I doubt that most people are convinced that it is their “civic duty” to spend weeks on a jury trial while foregoing their normal paycheck in lieu of $15 per day.  That is simply asking too much of people especially for those living paycheck to paycheck.

The problem for the legal system is that the juror selection process  is obviously being distorted by eliminating those who have full time jobs.  The result of this jury selection distortion is no doubt of interest to both plaintiff and defendant, although it is not clear who ends up benefiting.  If working people are routinely being excluded from jury selection, does this result in a denial of your rights to plead your case in front of a “jury of your peers”?  The thought processes of a jury that is comprised of unemployed, retired or other nonworking individuals may be less inclined to have a impartial view of a prosperous defendant and ultimately preempt a fair jury decision.

Pay What The Job Is Worth

The most obvious answer for overcoming the financial objections to jury service is to provide fair compensation to jurors instead of the ridiculous $15 per day compensation.  If a working person is called for jury duty, pay them the same amount that they would have received at their regular job.  If the prospective juror is unemployed offer a fair rate of compensation.  Money talks as always.