Reduction of the dream...

About fifteen years ago, I was talking with an old friend of mine who was joking that he hadn’t really done anything he had expected to do by that time in his life. At one point in the conversation, he looked up and, smiling at me, said something that I clearly remember even so many years later: “All of my dreams have come true… only on a drastically smaller scale than I would have ever dreamed possible.” At the time I first heard this little bit of self-deprecation, I had to laugh at the irony in the conflict between the dreary resignation it held and the hope and happiness in the idea of his achievement of his dreams.

During last night’s State of the Union address, a portion of President Obama speech reminded me this conversation but in a way that was much more ominous. At one port of his address, after talking about some of the opportunities of which his grandparents were able to take advantage, President Obama stated the following:

“The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them. “

When I heard this statement, I had to rewind the speech and listen to it again to be sure that I had heard him properly. On my second listen it turned out that I had. In only two short paragraphs, it appears that the President has defined an American promise quite different from the one I learned as a child.

One of the first non-fiction books I can remember having an impact on me as a child was The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. In this book, Franklin describes a life that began in poverty and ended with him becoming one of the most notable people the country has ever produced. Franklin notes a life that began in poverty and ended in wealth and notoriety. He notes his successes, his failures, and his philosophies in ways that have inspired generations. Franklin’s life and successes inspired James Harper of HarperCollins publishing to leave his farm life and start one of the largest publishing companies in America. Thomas Mellon, after reading Franklin’s Autobiography was able to see the possibilities the country held and left his farm to found one of the largest banks in the United States. Mellon once said that “[f]or so poor and friendless a boy to be able to become a merchant or a professional man had before seemed an impossibility; but here was Franklin, poorer than myself, who by industry, thrift and frugality had become learned and wise, and elevated to wealth and fame.” Mellon went on to say that he realized that he “had will and energy equal to the occasion, and could exercise the same degree of industry and perseverance…. After that I was more industrious when at school, and more constant than ever in reading and study during leisure hours. I regard the reading of Franklin’s autobiography as the turning point of my life.”

I remember that the stories noted in Franklin’s Autobiography were used as parables of how we too could succeed. While there would obviously be hurdles, if we worked hard enough, America was a place that promised that there were no limits to what you could achieve. It was a place of hope and a place of dreams.

Obama’s vision of America is quite different. Obama states a very specific promise for those who work hard in the country he now governs. Unlike the America where Franklin became wealthy through hard work, Obama’s America offers to those who “work hard”, not the ability to become wealthy and powerful in the world; but, rather Obama’s America offers us the chance to do “well enough.” How well is enough to our President? He defines this quite specifically as the ability to “raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.” True wealth from hard work is apparently no longer an option in Obama’s America; rather, it is a very specific standard of living that President Obama feels is the acceptable reward.

What’s more, Obama seems to think that this limitation on reward is somehow a restoration of something that has been lost when he says that we need to “restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share." I do not seem to remember a time when our economy gave “a fair shot” to anyone. Those who succeed do not do so because they are given anything; is the act of taking a shot that leads someone to succeed. I am not even sure how one can measure someone’s fair share if we really live in a society that allows those who work hard to achieve whatever they can.

The reduction of the American dream to the one that our President expressed is a sad day for America. I fear for my children’s future in a world where they are dictated their acceptable levels of success in such specific terms. I dread the day when they realize that they have achieved this new American Dream and become aware that it is truly on a drastically smaller scale than they were capable of achieving.

I can only agree with one part of what the President said here. “What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values.” The problem is that these are not “American values” either.

SC debate shows Gingrich to be the only viable candidate the Republicans have.

Last night’s debate from Columbia, SC clearly showed the capabilities of each of the GOP candidates for President. Let us look at each of them here.

Perry: Here is a candidate who decided to start Obama’s campaign early. Attack and demonize the wealthy. Call for Romney to release tax records. Be certain that you are little more than an empty suit.

Santorum: Here is a candidate who is out of his league. Santorum wants to come across as informed but attacks only part of Gingrich’s plan for Social Security and ignoring the part that pays for it. Santorum then goes on to attack it again after being corrected only to end up with his nose firmly placed in the corner by Gingrich once again. Santorum also wants to paint all attacks against him as left wing or lies and hypocrisy even when some are entirely correct by his own admission [Voting rights for convicted felons]. Screams “Stop it” to Romney like he is a six year old in a fight with a 3 year old over a stuffed animal when he feels that he is being wronged.

Paul: Comes across strong on local policy but foreign policy continues to be a problem. Believes that the American Military endlessly bombs other countries, which leads them to hate and attack us. [Provided no proof of said “endless bombings.”] Believes a good foreign policy is “Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us.” Paul seems to believe that when people get “upset” with the US over fictional ongoing bombings it leads to flying two planes into the towers of the Trade Center. [I would hate to see what they do when they get mad.]

Romney: Here is a candidate who wants to live in the middle of the road. His obviously practiced answers say very little and give him wiggle room to back out [like he did on his answer about releasing his taxes:

“ROMNEY: You know, I looked at what has been done in campaigns in the past with Senator McCain and President George W. Bush and others. They have tended to release tax records in April or tax season. I hadn’t planned on releasing tax records because the law requires us to release all of our assets, all the things we own. That I have already released. It’s a pretty full disclosure. But, you know, if that’s been the tradition and I’m not opposed to doing that, time will tell. But I anticipate that most likely I am going to get asked to do that around the April time period and I’ll keep that open… I think I’ve heard enough from folks saying, look, let’s see your tax records. I have nothing in them that suggests there’s any problem and I’m happy to do so. I sort of feel like we are showing a lot of exposure at this point. And if I become our nominee, and what’s happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year and that’s probably what I would do.”]

This answer could have won him the Dancing with the Stars GOP candidate special. If he had said either Yes or No here at least he would have taken a stand. He actually answered this with a “probably”. His answer was direct on his Super PAC criticism and with the amount of time he had to come up with an answer to this I would have been shocked if it wasn’t. He was surprisingly weak with his answer to the Bain Capital attacks which is worrisome when you consider that Obama can continue on this.

Gingrich: Gingrich is the obvious winner of the SC debate and clearly the only person on the stage who can roll with questions and answer them from a position of clear ideology and knowledge. Gingrich easily took to school each of the other candidates [at least those with any real shot—Perry was not really mentioned by him at all] from Romney’s failure to even suggest that his Super PAC should stop with the inaccurate ads, to Paul’s likening Chinese dissidents to terrorists, and on to Santorum’s uninformed weak arguments about his plan for social security. Gingrich’s public spanking of Juan Williams after his gotcha race-baiting question was also a preview of what to expect from him in his answers to similar questions that are sure to arise during any debates with Obama.

There is little doubt here that Gingrich is the only viable candidate in this field. If we do not see him as the candidate, it will be a tragedy.

They can't be serious...[again]

On July 28^th, Paul Abrams wrote an article on the Huffington Post titled “Constitution Prohibits ‘Deadbeat Nation’ in which he argues the following:

“Because the 14th Amendment states, the "validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law....shall not be questioned", the country must pay its public debt. There is no discretion, no choice. Yes, it is Congress that has borrowing, taxing and spending powers, but the 14th Amendment's command that the country's obligations be paid makes it clear that those powers are not discretionary once an obligation has been authorized by law.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/14th-amendment-congress_b_912776.html

What we see here is akin to the same sort of rhetorical slight of hand that lead to the horrible Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs New London that allowed municipalities to take property from legitimate land owners and give it to wealthier people who want to put more expensive properties in their places. The justification for this horrible decision was made when John Paul Stevens wrote in the Majority opinion that, though the Constitution used the term “public use” when describing the cases that allow a government to take property, the Supreme Court would decide the case as if it was written as “public purpose’. [While this was not directly stated, the effect was nonetheless devastating to those who have lost their homes to developers in the mean time.]

Here, we again see an attempt to bastardize the language and meaning in the Constitution by those who simply find it too difficult to live within its boundaries.

In the article listed above, Abrams quickly gives the actual text of the 14^th Amendment [using the proper term debt] before going on to argue for paragraph after paragraph, as if instead of “debt” the Constitution had used the term “obligation.” This is yet another attempt to alter the meaning of the Constitution by simply misquoting it; by changing the meaning of the words it contains. Debts and obligations are two different things. A debt is something that has already been incurred while an obligation is something that we have said we will incur in the future.

It is a direct lie at this point to suggest that anyone has questioned the debt itself. In fact, all discussions up to this point are over how we will handle this debt moving forward; the discussion is about how to limit the obligations that continue to cause the debt to grow.

Suggesting that the 14th amendment applies here is a true bastardization of its intent and can only point to the nefarious intent of those who suggest it applies or to their incredible lack of intelligence.

One can only hope that this fallacious argument does not lead to any action from the President that would only serve to further damage to the Constitution itself.

Presidential address on the Debt Ceiling...With thoughts inserted..

Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we've been having in Washington over the national debt - a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans. [The fact that I am going to say the kinds of things that can only hinder debate should be ignored.]


For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus.


But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation's credit card. [The fact that I pushed for and got a healthcare bill forced through that will make the expense of the prescription drug program look like pocket change should also be ignored.]


As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit. [The fact that I chose to spend more while admitting that there was less money coming in should be ignored.]


Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can't balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money - the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won't have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid. [The incredible audacity I have in calling a 14 trillion debt “a little credit card debt” should be ignored as should my recent statements about the infrastructure programs we already unsuccessfully tried to fund as being not quite as shovel ready as we thought.]


Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that's what we've been trying to do. I won't bore you with the details of every plan or proposal [primarily because not one of them has come from my office], but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.
[That my spokesman Jay Carney recently said “Leadership is not proposing a plan for the sake of having it voted up or down, and likely voted down, because it is -- look, you know how this town works and how Congress works” proving that my White House feels that Leadership is only present in giving ourselves political cover should be ignored.]


The first approach says, let's live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let's cut domestic spending to the lowest level it's been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let's cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare - and at the same time, let's make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let's ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions. [That these tax breaks I talk about are standard business expense deductions that I am looking to remove from businesses should be ignored. The fact that punishing business growth and prosperity seems to make little sense as punishment is designed to reduce behavior should also be ignored.]


This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn't happen so abruptly that they'd be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now. [Get ready to hear me say balanced approach at least seven more times. Please forget that by balanced approach I mean MY approach; that I mean having those who disagree with my approach cave in to my demands. You know… everyone balanced on my side of the board.]


This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren't happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared.


While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all [Please ignore my Strawman here, I know that no one suggested no revenue but rather no increased taxes—the problem in stating the fact here is that the truth does not advance my argument in the least], there are many in the Senate who have said "Yes, I'm willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem." [Try not to miss my Strawman here though where I suggest that people on the other side of this issue are simply “not willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because they do not care about solving the problem”] And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks. [That Boehner will shortly call me out on this and say that they had a deal and that I then changed my demands should be ignored because, Hey, I care about solving the problem.]


The only reason this balanced approach [This has a ring to it doesn’t it?] isn't on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach - an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about - cuts that place a greater burden on working families. [Please ignore the fact that the top 10% of wage earners already pay more than 70% of all federal taxes in 2008 and that in 2010 the top 50% of wage earners pay 97.3% of all taxes already and that asking them to pay more in a recession is adding insult to injury.]


So the debate right now isn't about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get. [Please ignore the fact that I won’t ever be explaining this statement and that I cleverly said don’t get rather than can’t get because these breaks are available to all but are only taken by those who qualify for them. Think of it as suggesting that people with families pay taxes on their cars get a tax deduction that families without cars “don’t get”. While this is a true statement, we simply gloss over the fact that other families will get this deduction if they ever purchase a vehicle and pay taxes on it.]


How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? [Please ignore the the fact that I fail to mention the difference between income tax and taxes on dividends here.] How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for? [Try to accept that my view of what you need is the correct view. Try to understand that you should be asking the government to be able to keep the money you earn so that we can decide how much we think you should get. This is where we are going these days.]


That's not right. It's not fair. [Try to forget that I have said in the past that we should raise taxes on people even if it reduces revenue simply because it is the fair thing to do.] We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country - things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research. [Tax credits allowing people to get golf carts, 200 Million dollars to “design and furnish” the Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters, a home for a Beer Museum… clearly none of these sorts of projects can be cut.]


Keep in mind that under a balanced approach [This is only the third time I think… more to come] , the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. [We will also talk about tax increases here only in the frame of tax rates. We will ignore that we are also discussing the possibility of ending the child tax credit and home interest deductions. While effectively many people’s tax burden will go up, we will still say we did not raise taxes… Nice.] None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we're talking about under a balanced approach [Wow, twice in the same paragraph. I am good.] is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires [Try to ignore the fact that I also already included people making over 250,000 a year and higher] - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make [Other than the roughly 50% of people who pay no federal taxes at all]. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they've pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach [How many is this now? I forget. Is it getting a bit forced?] by saying this:


"Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer."


Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. [Try to forget other quotes by Reagan such as "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."] But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach [Again… now even I am starting to wonder if we put this in more than we should have. Who wrote this speech… someone who used to work in subliminal advertising? I need to follow up on that.] - an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.


Now, what makes today's stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling - a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before. [That’s right, I am condescending. Hop up on Mr. Obama’s lap and I will tell you a very scary story…]


Understand - raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. [The fact that cutting spending earlier would have kept us from having to raise the debt ceiling should be ignored.]


In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. [Please ignore the fact that simply because we used to smoke like chimneys everywhere we went, paint our kid’s rooms with lead paint, let our kids play with plastic bags over their heads does not mean we should still be doing these things.] And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won't be able to pay all of our bills.


Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach. [Fortunately I believe that I can say this sort of thing without you realizing that I have essentially said that the only I’ll prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of them agree to MY terms. Pretty slick of me.]


If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills - bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, and the government contracts we've signed with thousands of businesses. [Studying the viscosity of Ketchup, examining the flatulence of cows, 1.8 Million to study why pigs smell.]


For the first time in history, our country's Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. [That we will most likely already be downgraded due to our incredible debt should also be ignored.]


Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis - one caused almost entirely by Washington. [Hey, here is a pretty factual statement. Savor it.]


Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn't solve the problem.


First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there's no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road. [That’s right, I somehow expect you to believe that the possibility of a default in six months is worse than the reality of a default in one week. Write this in your journals. You may want to remember this one.]


But there's an even greater danger to this approach. [It is not the one I want. I simply cannot let that happen.] Based on what we've seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way. [It’s true, I checked my crystal ball. You will also all be bitten by evil mice in six months if we don’t do what I want now……BOO!]


That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. [Nope, not putting forth plans of my own is the way to do it. Having the Senate kill the only bill that has passed the house to stop this from happening rather than amend it and return it for debate is the way to do it. Running the country is apparently all about ending discussions I don't like.] It is a dangerous game we've never played before, and we can't afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington's political warfare. [Please ignore the fact that an extension that I am saying I will not sign would avoid all of this until we have time to really come up with a plan and that by not signing one should it be put in front of me, I would be the single cause of all that I claim would happen.]


Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don't have to go through this again in six months.


I think that's a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress - a compromise I can sign. [Do you see how I can now claim that anything they come up with and I sign was due to me even though they have effectively cut me out of the process at this point?] And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before [when they caved to my demands]. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.


I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don't see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. [Did I really just suggest that there are those who want government to live outside of its means? Do you think I will be called out on that?] And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. [Technically I am a big part of why it “seems” that way but who will ever say it?] But do you know what people are fed up with most of all? [I hope it’s not the phrase “Balanced Approach” because I am thinking of getting a tattoo of that on my hip.]

They're fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can't seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. [Tax hikes will do that. I am sure of it.] They are offended by that. And they should be.


The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government. So I'm asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach [Ha..One more time!] to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.


America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy [We are a democracy right?...Or was that a Republic?...I’ll have to look that one up when this is over….Balanced approach.] made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed [though republican ideas should come from the back seat and then be dismissed by the Senate without comment or discussion], we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: "Every man cannot have his way in all things -- Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society." [Please ignore the fact that I have just stated that I will only do this my way.]


History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self [Please ignore the fact that this is a rigid ideology in and of itself], and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.


That's who we remember. That's who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let's seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth - not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation [and that coming together means doing exactly what I want]. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. [Balanced approach...]

Yes, they think we are that stupid...

"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money”-Energy Secretary Stephen Chu [discussing the ban on the incandescent light bulb]

This particular decision also takes away a few other choices as well. Among them is the choice to not buy light bulbs that each contain enough mercury into my house that would cause a hazardous chemical spills if broken and which also require the following clean up steps if one becomes broken:

1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.

Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.

Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.

Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:

Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.

If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.

Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:

If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.

You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.

If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials

Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.

Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.

Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.

Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs, visit http://www.energystar.gov/cfls

For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs and mercury, visit

http://www.energystar.gov/mercury

Let us take a look at all of the new freedoms that come with CFLs.

We will be free to be at the mercy of the elements for the time it takes to follow the clean up steps above because we have to turn off our heating or cooling units whenever a bulb is broken in our homes.

We will be free to avoid the use of brooms or vacuums to clean up broken bulbs on our hard wood floors.

We are free to stockpile sealable jars and plastic bags in the event of light bulb breakages.

We are free to trash any fabrics that are exposed to the broken bulbs and free to avoid using our washing machines to try to clean them.

We will be free to make the choice to keep our clothing if it is simply exposed to the mercury Vapor from a broken bulb and only forced to throw away those things that actually touched what was being cleaned.

We will be free to continue to have to turn off our heating and cooling units for the next “several times we vacuum our tainted rugs.

We will be free to pollute the environment with the internal combustion engines in our cars as we take the hazardous materials to government approved recycling centers after the cleanup as they cannot be tossed in with the rest of the normal trash.

So the question is whether we should all go give Stephen Chu a big hug for all of the new freedoms he is trying to force on us or whether we should open our eyes and see him for the amazing ass that he is.

The answer is an easy one.

I don't understand why it isn't working...

I keep spending more than I earn month after month and I can't seem to get out of debt.

I am at the top of what I decided is the deepest in debt I would allow myself to get and as a result will be raising that self-made limit and spending more and more for the foreseeable future.

I am sure that I will eventually spend my way out of this mess.

How can I possibly fail?

More misdirection…

In another quote from the President’s speech at George Washington University, he goes on to reach out to the smooth brained among us when he says the following:

“They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.”

This would be true if the economy were as simple as a single pie. If this were the case, whenever anyone took a piece of pie, there would obviously be less to go around for everyone else. [This fact is a demonstration of a Zero-Sum Gain where the total of the gains and losses in a situation will always zero out. –i.e. If I get one pie (+1) and you lose the pie (-1) the sum of this dealing is zero.

What the President fails to understand here is that the economy is slightly more complex than sharing a pie. In economic terms, if the demand on pie slices goes up and making pies becomes more profitable, more pies will be made. This means that my ability to buy and desire for pie can result in a greater amount of pie for everyone.

It is the penalties and taxes on the pie-maker in this situation that may artificially introduce into the transaction the idea of the zero-sum. If, as a pie-maker, I see that investing more of my time and money into the production of pies will increase my income to a point I feel is worthwhile I may do so. This increase can take the form of longer hours or additional employees. If, however, taxes and regulations are systematically increased on my new income to such an extent that my increased work produces a lesser gain than I feel would justify the expense of time, money, or the addition of employees to my company, then run the risk of losing out on true economic growth.

In the end, please try to remember that the President, when he talks about taking money away from the poor or the sick, is really saying is that he does not want to allow people who earn the money to decide how it is used. The President ultimately does not want the federal government to lose the ability to decide where the confiscated money goes.