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.

America At War - Again

Does being elected President of the United States somehow turn an otherwise normal  man into an aggressor, eager to engage American armed forces into unnecessary wars? Consider the following:

Military buildup in Afghanistan warranted, Obama says

The White House last week announced substantial increases of troops bound for Afghanistan and plans to increase training and foreign aid both in that country and in neighboring Pakistan.

Obama said Al Qaeda and its allies would be pursued aggressively but that did not mean that ground troops would enter Pakistan.

Wars are a horrific waste of economic resources and human life, yet the powers to be  seem eager to “project our power” by engaging in needless and useless conflicts.  What exactly is our strategy and exit plan with Iraq and Afghanistan?  The lack of a c0herent strategy for conducting two wars that we cannot afford and that seem to be without purpose seem certain to backfire on the Obama administration at some point.

Poll: Most Say Afghanistan War Not Worth Fighting

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans say the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, according to a poll released on the eve of that nation’s elections.

An ABC News-Washington Post poll found 51 percent who said the war was not worth fighting, while 47 percent said it was worth it.

Three years ago the U.S. had about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. There are expected to be about 68,000 by year’s end.

Obama’s Wars

The cost of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have reached $900 billion, $675 billion for Iraq and $225 billion for Afghanistan. I bet you thought we had taken our troops out of Iraq based on press coverage. You would be wrong. We still have 135,000 troops there, only down 30,000 since the surge. In the meantime we have escalated our presence in Afghanistan to 55,000 troops and there are serious discussions to bring that up to 100,000. We will reach $1 trillion for these two wars and what have we accomplished? I’d love to hear from my pro-war friends on this site with concrete benefits that we have achieved for $1 trillion. No democracy in the Middle East bullshit, because that is a lie. Could this $1 trillion have been spent in a better way? Or better yet, not spent at all.

Obama campaigned that he would end these wars. Another lie proving that the Military Industrial Complex is all powerful. His budget actually increased for the military.

General: Afghan Situation ‘Serious’

The top U.S. commander for Afghanistan called the situation there “serious” but salvageable, in a sobering assessment issued Monday that is expected to pave the way for a request for more American troops, funds for Afghan forces and other resources.

This year, tens of thousands of additional U.S. and allied troops have flowed into the volatile country, bringing the total to more than 100,000, of which 62,000 are American. Casualties among troops have risen to their highest levels since the U.S. military overthrew the Taliban government in the fall of 2001.

Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

U.S. strategy — protecting the population — is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about “deteriorating” (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

The U.S. strategy is “clear, hold and build.” Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.

Our Government has provided no rationale explanation for being at war in Afghanistan.  How exactly  is the national interest being served by expending lives and resources in a war with questionable objectives that cannot be won?

The idealistic notion of “nation building” is absurd in a country that has never had a functioning government.   Is the United States prepared to spend trillions of dollars over decades to help a country that can’t help itself?  The United States still stations hundreds of thousands of troops in Korea, Germany and Japan, six decades after World War II ended.  Why not do some “nation building” at home?  It’s time to pull the plug on this ill conceived and useless war.

Public Angst Grows

Recent polls indicate increasing disaffection with the economic and social policies being forced upon the American public by the controllers in Washington.   The American public thought that they voted for “change” but what we seem to be getting is micro management and obtrusive government interference into our  lives.

The imperial Washington power structure seems oblivious to the fact that most Americans do not trust their government and believe that their financial situation is being made worse, not better, by government policies.

Here are the results from the latest polls that are beginning to show a major disconnect between the average American and an out of control power elite in Washington who believe they know “what is best for us”.

Why Obama’s Ratings Are Sinking

Instead, Gallup reports that disapproval of the president’s economic policies has grown to 49% in July from 30% in February. Even among the president’s core supporters, young people in the 18-29 age group, his overall approval has dropped 11 points since January.

Dissatisfaction is spreading into open protest as members of Congress try to explain the president’s policies to the public. Angry voters have engaged in high-profile confrontations in town-hall meetings around the country over a proposed health-care overhaul that protesters complain is unaffordable, socialistic, incomprehensible, and which their representatives have not even read.

The president’s sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration’s free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president’s economic policies was, literally, “spending too much.” In second place was the worry that the president is “leading the nation toward socialism” through government takeovers and bailouts.

In January 2009, the Pew Research Center asked about 2,000 Americans, “Do you think the government does more to help or more to hurt people trying to move up the economic ladder?” Amid the most frightening economic crisis in decades, more Americans still said the government would hurt than the number who thought it would help (50% versus 39%). Independent surveys from roughly the same period found that only one in five Americans believed he or she could trust the government.

Citizens will put up with a lot—but not with anyone who imperils our future.

There is no evidence that more than a minority of Americans accept the idea that a $17 trillion national debt, greater reliance on government for jobs and health, and hyper-progressive taxation offer the hope they deserve for themselves and their children. The administration and Congress can deny these truths with charges of un-Americanism and implausible conspiracy theories about the current citizen demonstrations. But opinion polls deliver an honest expression of unhappiness over the direction our nation is taking.

The ruling elite in Washington seem to be oblivious to or ignoring the reality of America’s growing disaffection with the course the nation is taking.  The approval rating of Congress is at 30%.  Only one if five Americans trust their government.   Many Americans believe that government policies are financially bankrupting the country and the future of our children.   It’s almost as if our country was being run by overlords, appointed by a foreign power.  It’s time for change indeed - the problem is that the “changes” being forced upon us are not quite what we had in mind.

Postal Service Poor Analogy

Now we know why the President usually does not say much without the Teleprompter in front of him; why in the world would you mention the Post Office when trying to convince America that the government should take over the health care system?

The Post Office is a prime example of how a lack of competition leads to high prices.  Without competition, there is no need to worry about raising prices, providing good service or running an efficient organization - higher prices are simply passed on to the consumer.   Productivity has been growing in the private sector for decades, especially with the efficiencies gained through the Internet.  Yet year after year, the Post Office relentlessly raises rates far in excess of the consumer price index.

Cost Of A Stamp

Consider some of the other obnoxious results of a government run monopoly as detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal Opinion column:

Whatever possessed President Obama to mention the travails of the post office while discussing health care the other day, his timing was certainly apt. The Postal Service is headed toward a loss of $7 billion this year and another $7 billion in 2010.

Most mail today is delivered electronically via email. Traditional postal mail volume has fallen by nearly 20% since 2000, and the average household gets one-third fewer letters than a decade ago.

No private business in America could continually raise prices, lose billions of dollars and then hope to win back customers by promising poorer service.

Here’s a secret Washington doesn’t want to admit: That 14 cent per letter cost hike after inflation over the past 60 years imposes a $20 billion a year toll on the U.S. economy.

Most employees have no-layoff clauses, the starting salaries are about 25% to 30% higher than for comparably skilled private workers, and the fringe benefits are so expensive that the Government Accountability Office says $500 million a year could be saved merely by bringing health benefits into line with those of other federal workers.

The most overdue reform is to strip away the Post Service’s monopoly on first-class mail and bulk mail. Competition is the key ingredient to innovation, low prices and good service. This was Mr. Obama’s insight at his recent health-care town hall when he noted that “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

The argument has been made for 200 years that the postal monopoly is necessary to “bind the nation together.” Once that was at least plausible. But today the Internet delivers to the most remote corners of Alaska and the Badlands at one-one-hundredth the cost of snail mail. The sooner Congress requires the Postal Service to shrink and adapt to this reality, the smaller will be the losses imposed on taxpayers.

To expect a government health care monopoly to be run efficiently defies common sense and the American public knows it.  The attempt to quickly ramrod massive health care legislation into law before allowing public discussion is an outrage against democracy.

The haste to force health care legislation upon the American public implies that those pushing for  “quick” legislation knew that in the light of day, the American public would reject it or demand further information on the cost/benefits of proposed changes.  Elected representatives are supposed to represent the public view rather than arrogantly assume that they know what is best.  The uncontrollable, unaccountable  and free spending mob now running the country needs a course in basic democracy.