Bachmann Walsh Head Explosion

I listen to NPR. A lot. I go through phases while listening to NPR on my daily commute. There will be several days where I listen on the way to work, listen on the way home, listen at home, and all the while thinking, "Well, that's interesting" or "Hmm, I didn't know that." or even "Wow, that's really kinda' boring... next." And then I have days where I want to shake the holy hell out of the people whose voices are invading my car. Yesterday, that voice was Michelle Bachmann's when she said this:

This is a misnomer, that I believe that the president and treasury secretary have been trying to pass off on the American people and it's this, if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion that somehow the United States will go into default and we will lose the full faith and credit of the United States. That is simply not true.

Um... really? Because I'm not an economist nor am I a member of Congress, but here's how I understand it: The U.S. government spends more money than it takes in. To do this, it must borrow money. But a while back, Congress set a limit (aka "debt ceiling") on the amount of money the U.S. government could borrow, so whenever we hit the limit, Congress has to raise the limit (again), which happens pretty regularly. We are about to hit that ceiling, meaning that the U.S. government cannot borrow any additional money. Which clearly means that the U.S. government will not be able to pay out on its obligations.

Now I know what Ms. Bachmann means. What she means is that the U.S. government does take in enough money to allow it to pay the interest on our debt, meaning that we would not officially default on our debt. But in order to do that, the President would need to decide where the money coming in should go and would have to decide that it should go to pay interest on government bonds and not to any number of other places (you know, about 1.1 trillion other places). Sure we can probably pay the interest and some other important stuff. But we can't pay all of it. Which of the other entities that are owed money will not get it. Should soldiers still get paid? How about Social Security recipients? Federal prison guards? How about all the people who work in the federal courthouses? The CIA? Should we take a break from investigating terrorists while we sort out this whole "debt ceiling" business? How about TSA screeners at airports that we simply had to make government employees after 9/11? What about border guards and the INS? Can we stop worrying about undocumented immigrants for a few months?

The list obviously goes on and on. And clearly it's not all that easy for everyone to agree on which areas to not spend money on or we would have done it already. And usually in these cases, I just shake my head and realize that our nation's leaders know a whole lot better than they say on TV and on the radio. They know darn well that this is something that needs to get done. They know darn well that this isn't something that "the President is asking for," but that it's something that is required in order for the nation to keep on keeping on without serious impacts on our economy and the world's economy. But Michelle Bachmann is running for President of the United States of America and so I am going to take her at her word. That if she were sitting in the big chair, she would not raise the nation's debt ceiling because it's simply unnecessary. So it's not like there was any real likelihood that I would have been voting for Ms. Bachmann next November, but now... I actively want her out of the race. Like now.

And then on top of all that, today Joe Walsh said this:

President Obama, quit lying. You know darn well that if August 2nd comes and goes there is plenty of money to pay off our debt and cover all social security obligations. And you also know that you and only you have the discretion to make those payments. 

I know you have a willing media that protects everything you say and do, but have you no shame sir? In three short years you have bankrupted this country and destroyed job creation. You are either in over your head, don't understand what makes this country great, or are hell-bent in turning us into some European big government wasteland. 

Come on President Obama - quit scaring the American people and quit talking about band aids and peas. Lead for a change - get members of your own party to support a Balanced Budget Amendment

Really, Joe? I won't even get into the job killing thing. I'll deal with that later. But again, you are splitting hairs. The U.S. government is about to run out of money to pay its bills. And you're basically suggesting that it's all fine because people who hold US treasuries will get their money. Guess what... somebody's not going to get their money, Joe. Money that WE, the American people, promised to pay them. WE promised to pay federal workers who go to work every day and are due paychecks. WE purchased services, equipment, and goods from businesses and other countries and now WE need to pay for those things. WE promised unemployed Americans that we would send them a check every week to help them get back on their feet and hopefully become hard-working, tax-paying citizens again very soon. Someone that WE promised to pay is not going to get paid, Joe, and I for one don't like the idea of you turning us into a country of deadbeat debtors.

Ugh! Joe, Michelle, do me a favor. First, go read my previous post on the debt ceiling: One American Family. It's a parable; maybe it'll help you understand why we need to do this. And then... and this one is important... please stop speaking. At least for a little while. You're really making my head hurt. Seriously, a homemaker in the 'burbs should not be able to punch holes in your reasoned arguments a mile and a half wide. Next time you try to take us all to Crazy Town, try and think it through a little better, OK?

Lobbying Against Common Sense

What do you remember about school lunches from when you were a kid? When I was a kid in public grade school, I remember this: we had cheese and sausage pizza every Friday. We loved it. Mmm. Those rectangular slices of cheesy doughy goodness. And I distinctly remember my first week in the 7th grade lunch line. Now that we were in junior high, we could choose what we wanted to eat, as opposed to everyone just getting the same tray of food. That first week, they ran out of whatever they were serving, and we had to wait for more to come out of the oven. While we were waiting, the lunch lady walked down the line to let everyone know that they did still have fries. So if anyone was just ordering fries, they could go to the front of the line and get them without waiting. I asked a second lunch lady, "Who would get only fries for lunch?" She responded, "Well, some of the girls only get fries if they're on a diet." My 7th grade reaction: "What? They're on a diet and they're eating french fries?" But yes, they were. And I'm afraid to report that 7th grade me was apparently wiser than some of the folks wandering around our nation's capital these days.

You see, the US Department of Agriculture just released their new guidelines for school nutrition standards. They're not official yet, they've just released them for public comment. And let me tell you, there are some CRAZY things in there. Crazy. But not to worry, there are some fine, fine lobbyists that are attempting to set things straight.

Crazy Example #1: The new guidelines limit starchy vegetables (corn, peas, lima beans, and *drum roll please* pototoes) to two servings a week. That's right. The government is suggesting that it's maybe not such a hot idea to feed kids french fries five days a week. CRAZY I told you. But John Keeling of the National Potato Council is here to defend the noble potato. For one thing, he tells NPR, "The products that are in schools today basically are not your daddy's french fries." Really, John? They're still made out of potatoes, right? So even before you fry them, a potato has about 200 calories. And I don't know if you know this, John, but schools have been cutting recess, so when are the kids supposed to burn off all of those carbohydrates? But that's not all. John also tells NPR, "You won't solve obesity on the backs of a single vegetable." Really, John? Thanks for that tidbit. So if all we do is eliminate french fries, we won't cure childhood obesity? Well then, I guess we're just screwed, aren't we, John. Chocolate cake for everyone!!!

Crazy Example #2: Senator Susan Collins from Maine (they grow a lot of potatoes in Maine) apparently brought a potato and a head of lettuce to the senate and held one in each hand as she shared this bit of useful information: "One medium white potato has nearly twice as much vitamin C as this entire head of iceberg lettuce." Really, Susan? No, I mean, really? You forgot to mention that a potato also has more vitamin C than a ream of paper. You see, lettuce contains very little vitamin C. Orange rinds contain more vitamin C than lettuce, too. Should we all start eating orange rinds? No? Could this be because there are more palatable foods that also have more vitamin C than lettuce? Hmm, I wonder. So your medium potato has 28% of our daily vitamin C, but it comes with 161 calories. But look at this handy little chart I made with the help of World's Healthiest Foods:

Look at that! Not only does potato not make the top ten, but look what does.... strawberries. God, do you think we'll be able to find a way to get our kids to eat strawberries? That seems like quite a tough job. We'd probably have to cut them into strips and deep fry them. No wait... that's potatoes.

Crazy Example #3: Under the current guidelines, the tomato sauce on frozen school pizza counts as a full serving of vegetables. Yes, that's right. Do we need to give the kids another vegetable? Give them a slice a of pizza! But according to Corey Henry of the American Frozen Food Institute, if we eliminate this guideline "You would likely see a dramatic reduction in the amount of frozen pizza, or pizza in general, that you're able to serve in school cafeterias." You know what, Corey? I'm gonna' go with that being a good thing. I do not consider frozen pizza to be at the top of the list of foods I'm super thrilled with my kid eating on a regular basis. Sure, my kid eats pizza, but it's not on my list of foods my kid needs to consume every week. Newsflash, Corey: frozen pizza is not a health food.

Now I know that we parents don't always feed our kids the best possible foods for every meal. There are plenty of frozen chicken nuggets being served up to our little darlings. But the fact that food producers are trying to convince our legislators to sacrifice the health of our children for their bottom lines is about all I can stand. And I know that there are people who believe that the government should not be dictating what kinds of foods Americans eat, so I want to remind you that this is not what we're talking about. You can eat whatever you want. You can give your kids whatever food you want. What these guidelines do is tell the schools what kinds of foods they can serve to America's children. There are already guidelines in place that are supposedly aimed at providing healthy meals in our schools. These guidelines state that children must be served a certain number of vegetables, for example. But these guidelines then state that pizza counts as a vegetable! Forgive me, but it does not take a certified nutritionist to tell you that frozen pizza and french fries are not the components of a healthy diet and are not what you think of when you tell kids to "eat their veggies."

So kids... email your senators and congressmen. Tell them that you know what every American already knows. Pizza and french fries are not health foods and should not form the cornerstone of our school menus.

*****

This post was inspired by a story I heard on NPR today: Lobbyists Want Fries And Pizza To Stay In School. Thank's NPR. You're always an inspiration.

What the **** Tennessee???

It's been a while since I was thoroughly annoyed by one of our idiotic states, but Tennessee is seriously working overtime to get into the mix. (If you missed the other states that annoy me, they are: Illinois, South Carolina, and South Dakota.)

So what is Tennessee doing that it has now won my Stupid State Award? Really, what hasn't it done? Let's take a look, shall we?

First off, I'm sure most of you have heard by now that the Tennessee senate passed SB 49 on Friday, nicknamed the "Don't Say Gay" bill, that would prevent science teachers from discussing homosexuality with their elementary and middle school students. They can't talk about it! Can't acknowledge it's existence. Gay kid in the classroom? Sorry. Kid with gay parents in the classroom? Nope, still no. How about kids in the classroom with eyes and legs who are sure to walk around in the world and see gay people, even if they are not gay themselves? No, no, and no. Children in Tennessee classrooms cannot be exposed to the idea of homosexuality. Now I don't think anyone thinks that grade school children should be taught about the details of sexuality, but that's not what we're talking about. What the bill states is that teachers cannot discuss homosexuality. At. All. Really? As if gay teenagers need something else to make their lives harder. Hello, Tennessee! Have you not heard of the It Gets Better Project? Do you not recall that this was a response to a gay COLLEGE student killing himself because of the unbearable stress of being ridiculed by his peers??? Apparently, promoting "family values" is more important to Stacey Campfield (the bill's sponsor) than protecting the emotional well-being of the children of Tennessee.

Oh, but don't worry. The gays aren't the only group that the Tennessee legislature hates. Oh no. They hate the Muslims, too! SB 1028 aims to save Tennessee from the threat of terrorism by regulating any organization that "adheres to sharia". Now I'm not a Muslim. I've never been a Muslim. But I've read some of this bill, and it is asinine. Here's an example. The beginning of the bill sets out to define what sharia is, and therein explaining why it is a huge threat to the people of Tennessee. Here's one of the things it says:

Sharia requires all its adherents to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic, including the representative government of this state with a political system based upon sharia; 

Got that? So if you are an adherent of Sharia law, you, by definition, want it to replace the US Constitution and the US government as a whole with Sharia. Which sounds pretty terrifying, were it not completely inaccurate. I'm not sure what kind of religious scholars they consulted while writing this bill, but here's what a quick check of Wikipedia says:

Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting

Really, all you need to know is this: "Muslims... differ as to what exactly it entails." But they all agree that it's a code of conduct for moral behavior. Sharia is what tells Muslims to pray five times a day or to abstain from drinking alcohol. By banning adherence to Sharia, they are basically stating that Muslim-Americans are banned from practicing their faith. (Yeah, this sounds completely Constitutional.) The Sharia defined in Tennessee's SB 1028 is as ridiculous as stating that:

Evangelical Christians believe that every word of the Bible is the literal Word of God and that God's Laws supercede the laws of man. God's laws are enumerated in the Bible and include supporting the ownership of slaves, polygamy, and the stoning of adulterers.

You know. That really isn't that crazy. I think we should keep a closer eye on those Evangelical Christian types. You know how they are always getting into trouble for all the adulterers they're stoning.

Dammit, Tennessee, don't go hiding behind your fake pretenses of "protecting children" and "protecting family values" and "protecting our citizens from terrorism." That's a bunch of crap and we ALL know it. You don't like gays and you don't like Muslims. And now EVERYONE knows it. Can you please go back to hating in the privacy of your own homes instead of insisting that your hate becomes legislation? Because it just makes you look like a bunch of asses.

Shocked at OBL's Location? Welcome to the Party... 9 Months Late

In the week since Osama bin Laden was killed, there has been a lot of talk about the location of the compound and its proximity to the "West Point of Pakistan." While I agree that this definitely raises some serious questions and demands further investigation, I would like to remind everyone of one very important point:

The President and others close to this mission have been aware of the location of this compound since August of 2010. 

So the shock you're experiencing now, is nine months old to the President. We all applaud the astounding skill of those involved in the mission to find, track, and eventually kill OBL. Do you not suppose that any of these bright individuals has not also thought to look into the ties that may or may not have existed between the multiple people who lived in the compound and those outside it?

Nine months people! The US government has been watching this place for nine months! So everyone just calm down. I am fully confident that if the CIA was able to locate OBL miles from the Pakistani capital, then they certainly had the foresight to follow that courier every time he took a breath outside the compound, much less paused to ask the local military officer "for directions."

So Congress can do its little dance where they act outraged and "demand answers" to questions regarding what the Pakistani government and military did or did not know. But I've got a pretty good feeling that the CIA already has a pretty good base of evidence to tell us what the truth of the situation is.

The thing is, there's a lot of that information that we're never gonna' know about. So people, next time there's an election, take it seriously. Because these are the people who decide what to do with that information. Make sure you're electing someone that you're confident will make the right decisions in the situations that you'll never know about.

We Don't Need the Picture

I am so very thankful that President Obama has decided that he will not be releasing the photos of dead OBL. So. Very. Thankful. If it wasn't a done deal that I'll be voting for him in 2012 (which it was), it is even more certain now. What great leadership, in spite of what will be certain dissent among some. What attention to national security and concern for American lives instead of political points. I never thought that President Barak Obama would bow to such trivial pressures and indeed, my hopes have been realized.

I know there are many out there who believe the president made the wrong decision. Here are a few reasons why I am certain he did not:

1. There are certainly people out there for whom a picture of the dead OBL would be the last straw, inducing them to join a radical group opposed to the United States and our interests.
2. OBL was shot twice in the head. In the face, in fact. The photo is certain to be gruesome.This can only add to ability for our enemies to use the photo against us.
3. A photo will not prove to any non-believers that OBL is dead. This is the country that gave us the Birthers movement. If there are people in this world, even this country, that believe that OBL is not dead, a photo of him dead is certainly not going to be convincing.
4. If we suppose that there are people who don't believe OBL is dead who would be convinced of his death if they saw a photo (and again, I suspect that number to be very small), how are we harmed by the fact that they don't think he's dead? Sure OBL was a symbol. If you believe that he is not dead, he remains a symbol. But if you do believe that he's dead, he remains a symbol. If there are people out there who don't think he's really dead, I say who cares? There are also people who believe that the moon landing was faked, 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and the world is flat. Seriously, there are people who really believe that the world is flat. Next.
5. Some people have cited the idea that 9/11 victims families should be able to view the photo because they deserve closure. If showing the photo could bring back a single victim of the 9/11 attacks, I would do it. In a heartbeat. But it won't. The only thing it could do is add to the death count. And the victims' families, I imagine, can not possibly want more Americans to die because of OBL.
6. If just the photo alone is not enough to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorist groups, picture this: dead OBL on a T-Shirt. I imagine that they would have become available within 24 hours. T-Shirts, baseball caps, door mats, toilet paper, you name it. You know how we Americans felt when we saw people celebrating 9/11? That is how many young Muslims would have felt watching arrogant Americans partying on television with a picture of a mutilated, lifeless OBL on their T-Shirt, probably with huge writing saying something ignorant like, "My Christian President can kick your Islamic Fundamentalists Leader's ass." Or maybe not. They'd have to concede that President Obama is Christian, and that seems unlikely.

So thank you, Mr. President for being our leader. Thank you for being the grown up. Thank you for protecting Americans in uniform and civilians, around the globe and here at home. Thank you for putting national security ahead of political maneuvering. Thank you.

You already had my vote in 2012, but I'm from Chicago, so now you'll get my second and third votes as well.

One American Family: A Parable

This is the story of Dave and Rita. They have a pretty good life: three kids, nice house, three cars, and a dog. Dave works as an independent consultant and Rita is a stay-at-home-mom. They have typical family debts: a mortgage, a couple car loans, some credit card debt, a student loan, and a home equity line of credit. The bank approved their line of credit at $100,000, which is more than Dave makes in a year. But Dave and Rita both know this and have no intention of actually using that much credit. Like many couples, Dave and Rita often have disagreements about their finances. Rita thinks Dave works too much and should should spend more time with the kids. She also thinks Dave spends way too much money on his hobbies, including his health club membership, country club membership, and restoring a classic car. Dave, meanwhile thinks that now that the kids are all in school, Rita's stay-at-home mom days should be behind her and she should go back to work. Despite their disagreements about their finances, things chug along pretty smoothly.

Then BAM, their son is in a car accident. A drunk driver slammed into his car on his way home one night. Thankfully, he survived, but needed years of intense physical therapy. Rita and Dave sued the driver, but what they thought was an open and shut case dragged on for years. All the while, the medical and legal bills kept pouring in. Dave sold his classic car and began golfing less, but the balance on the line of credit continued to creep up. After a while, Dave and Rita had a talk. They agreed that things were getting a little precarious and that, given Dave's salary, they would not let the balance on the line of credit go over $15,000.

Things didn't get dramatically better, and eventually, the balance on the line of credit started getting close to the $15,000 mark. Dave and Rita talked again. Dave said that, given the circumstances, he really thought it was time for Rita to go back to work. Rita disagreed. Dave showed her the balance on their line of credit. Rita agreed that it was bad, but insisted that Dave stop the gym membership or the country club membership. Dave didn't think he should be the only one making sacrifices. They couldn't agree on what to do. They eventually decided that this was just a rough time that they were going through. The line of credit was doing what it was supposed to do: be their safety net. They would cut back on spending together. They agreed that they would not let the balance go over $30,000.

The mortgage, the credit card bills, the legal bills, and medical bills continued to come, and Dave and Rita continued to transfer more money from their line of credit into their checking account. Months went by. Dave did not quit the gym or the country club. Rita did not get a job. Again, the balance on their line of credit kept creeping up, until finally the balance was nearing $30,000. Dave was paying the bills and realized they needed to transfer more money into the checking account to pay them. He talked to Rita, but Rita was worried. This was a lot of debt. She told Dave that she was drawing a line in the sand. Rita had to approve all transfers from the line of credit and she said that she wouldn't approve anyting until Dave agreed to quit the country club and the gym. Dave said he wouldn't do either unless Rita was willing to get at least a part-time job. Rita wouldn't give in: no transfer. Dave handed her the mortgage and credit card bills and told her that if she wasn't going to approve a transfer from the line of credit, she could figure out how to pay the bills. Dave agreed that they needed to do something, but the mortgage needed to be paid now, so unless Rita wanted to lose the house, they needed to transfer money from the line if credit now. Rita dug in her heels. She would not approve the transfer.

A week later, Rita still was refusing to approve a transfer from the line of credit. The mortgage was late. The credit card bill was late. The car payments were late. Rita and Dave finally sat down to talk. They agree that they both needed to give a little. They looked at all the numbers. They came up with a plan. Dave would quit the gym, but not the country club. Rita would get a part-time job. They would have enough extra money that they would be able to start paying down their massive debt. Rita felt so much better. They actually had a plan and the numbers worked.

Rita and Dave logged into their online account to transfer the money from their line of credit to pay the now overdue bills. Their credit line had been frozen.Since they were late with their credit card and mortgage payments, the had bank frozen their line of credit. Then they logged in to their online credit card accounts. The rates had gone up - way up. Their new minimum payments were now 5 times what they were before. Without access to their line of credit, they could not pay their bills that month. The plan that they had drawn up was suddenly in jeopardy. Without the line of credit and with the higher minimum payments, they couldn't pay the current bills. Rita did quickly find a part time job, but it didn't pay very well. Soon they were choosing which bills to pay and which they couldn't pay. Soon enough, the bank repossessed one of their cars, so Rita could no longer get to her part-time job. They struggled to try to catch up, but they just couldn't do it. Eventually, the bank foreclosed on their house and took the remaining car. Rita and Dave had to file for bankruptcy once they realized that they would never be able to dig themselves out of the hole they were in.

In the end, they lost everything. Why? Because Dave and Rita couldn't work things out? Sure, bad decisions and an inability to make tough choices got them into a deep hole. But the final push off the cliff came when instead of sitting down and facing the tough choices, Rita decided that the only way to get Dave to listen to her was to stop paying the bills, even though she could have paid them. One week late, but that was enough. Dave and Rita were already so leveraged that it started a downward cycle that couldn't be reversed. Had the bills been paid on time, the interest rates would not have shot up and they could have struggled through it. They could have made the tough choices and turned it around.

Unfortunately, Dave and Rita lost everything. Clinton, Raegan, and even baby Paley's bright future disappeared.

---

OK, folks. This is the time where good authors would just leave you to with Napoleon and his human friends playing cards and let you ponder the deeper meaning on your own. I, unfortunately, lack Mr. Orwell's self-restraint.

---

The moral of the story: Stop talking about not raising the debt ceiling. If you do not want to raise the debt ceiling, this is what you are saying: "I want to bring financial ruin to the United States of America. My beliefs are more important than the actual well-being of everyone else in this country that I claim to love. I will stand by my principles without considering the consequences of my actions."

We all agree that the nation's debt is out of control. We all agree that it is a problem that needs to be fixed. Can't we all also agree that we should not bring down the nation's economy because we can't quite agree on how to solve the problem?

Oh, and Democrats, this goes for you, too. In x years when you are no longer in power and try to do this same sh*t to the Republicans, just like you did 5 years ago.

All of you. Cut it the f*** out!

A Word About Corporate Taxes

There are people in the world who know a lot more about corporate taxes than I do. This isn't really saying much, because here's what I know about corporate taxes: companies pay taxes on their net earnings. That's about it. (And to be honest, I'm not really sure how accurate that statement is.) But there has been a lot of talk lately about corporate taxes, namely that some companies that make a lot of money haven't paid any income taxes. It's got me thinking: Why do corporations need to pay any income taxes at all? (Bet you didn't see that coming.)

Before you answer, let me share my thinking so that you know that I'm not completely insane. It seems to me that when a company makes money, it can only do one of four things with that money (there may be more, but I can only come up with four):

1. Spend it to maintain or grow the business
2. Keep it
3. Give it to employees through wages or bonuses
4. Give it to owners/shareholders through distributions or dividends

It is my understanding that option one makes the money non-taxable. Companies only pay taxes on net profits, so any earnings re-invested in the company are non-taxable.  (Please, somebody, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Option two allows the company to to build up a reserve, making it a stronger and more stable in the future.

Options three and four have the money passing from the company to actual people, all of whom presumably pay income taxes on that money.

So to recap, if a company doesn't pay income taxes, the only things it can do with the money is reinvest it, save it (both of which strengthen the company and presumably benefit the economy), pay it out in higher salaries, or pay it out in dividends (both of which give money to real people who pay income taxes on that money). Plus, if there is no corporate income tax in America, wouldn't that provide a huge incentive for companies to be based here (and bring  job with them).

I do see that it's possible that companies could be based here, even though all their employees or shareholders are actually not in America, but that seems pretty easy to fix. American companies can only avoid income taxes if at least 75% of their workforce and 75% of their shareholders are American, otherwise, you pay. Done.

So that's one take on the subject. Now you, many, many people who are much smarter than me, tell me where the holes are. (I am assuming there must be many, or there would be a lot more countries with no corporate taxes.)

Home F***ed-Up Home

So my last two posts have been about states passing dumb or infuriating laws that irked me. Continuing with that theme, I look to Sweet Home, Illinois.

Looking at the big picture, it's really hard to know where to start. There is so much craziness here lately. Like many states, our fiscal situation is well beyond "not good." The state is months behind on paying its bills, including money it owes to schools, service organizations, and private businesses, all of whom are having to lay people off because they can't afford to pay them if the state doesn't pay up for services already rendered. So we are adding to the unemployment numbers by making companies cut employees they wouldn't otherwise have had to cut. Some businesses have even gone out of business while waiting for the state to pay up. I guess that's one way for the state to reduce what it owes, just don't pay your debtors until they're forced to go out if business.

What has gotten us here is politics, plain and simple. Our politicians want to get re-elected, so they promise us better government services and lower taxes. A few years ago we started offering free public transportation to seniors. Why? Because Blago wanted to get re-elected and seniors are a HUGE voting block. If we are offering free public transportation to those who really need it, you know who could use free public transpiration more than seniors: poor people. It would make it easier for them to get jobs and become more productive members of society. You know who doesn't need free transportation? Middle class and wealthy seniors. You know who isn't a reliable group of voters? Poor people. But regardless of who could benefit from free rides the most, Blago didn't pay for it. Free rides for seniors, no plan on where the money that seniors used to pay and now wouldn't pay would come from. Details.

Full disclosure, I voted for Blago for his first term. But I also pretty distinctly remember the moment when he fully lost me. In 2003, Blago signed into law some pretty steep tax and fee increases for trucking companies in Illinois. At the time, truckers said that such large increases would drive trucking businesses out of Illinois. Supporters of the law claimed this was a group who was unhappy about a tax increase and were just trying to make the situation seem worse than it was.

To my untrained mind, this seemed, well, retarded. Government is offering a bajillion services and politicians don't want to upset the voters by raising their taxes, so they pick an industry and raise taxes on them. Well what do we think is going to happen? How hard is it to relocate your business on the other side of a state line. Seriously, folks, this isn't rocket science. If it's more expensive to operate your business in Illinois than it is in Missouri or Iowa or Indiana, why would you stay in Illinois?

A year later, the verdict was pretty much in. Thousands of trucking companies had already left the state, taking jobs and money with them. Again, DUH!

So that was back during the Blago era. Let's see how far we've come. A few days ago there was a big hullabaloo about Caterpillar leaving Illinois. CAT is huge in Illinois. They employ 23,000 people. Later, CAT CEO announced that CAT has no plans to leave Illinois, but that “policymakers in Springfield” are making it “harder by the day.” So a momentary respite; we have not yet driven away one of the biggest employers in the state. Good for us. Can we keep it that way?

Listen up Illinois: the party is over. We are up to our eyeballs in debt. The state can't pay its bills on time. This problem is not going to be easy to fix. It is going to mean fewer services. It is going to mean tax increases. It is going to mean that some public sector employees are going to lose their jobs. It is going to suck. But guess what... We, through our electoral choices and lax attention to our legislators, have dug this hole. And it is a deep f***ing hole. So the party is over and the bill has arrived and we are starting to realize that this is gonna' be hard for a while. Yes. Yes it is.

And this pretty much applies to the nation as well. You want the country out of debt, too? Then don't give me any garbage about how you can't have tax increases during a recession. You cannot fill the budget holes we've created through spending cuts or tax increases alone.  You need both. And you're going to need to compromise on some of your other "core principles." I know compromise is a dirty word now, but that's how you make it happen. If you want the state/country to be out of debt and that's your priority, then you have to deal with the hard consequences that go with it.  Sorry.

Legislation for the Grumpy

Oh, it's been one of those days. A new blog post idea every couple hours. People were finding a myriad of ways to irk me today. In no particular order, here are some of the topics that caused generally higher levels of annoyance than usual (which is already pretty high):

• Scott Walker
• Corporate income taxes
• South Carolina
• Miranda rights

I also had a couple questions about prayer that I think the web community could help me answer, but I think my blog is a little too young for such sensitive topics at the moment.

So let's spin the wheel and see where we land tonight...............

South Carolina it is!  (Ooh.  It's a theme.  Last week it was South Dakota that was on my list.)

Ok, South Carolina, I know you're one of the redder of the red states, and as such, your general "government get out of my business" hackles are going to be raised a little more easily than they might in some other states, but really? With all that's going on in the country and, I'm assuming, in your state right now, this is where you're choosing to spend your energy?

For those of you who don't know, South Carolina lawmakers have proposed a bill which would allow incandescent bulbs to be made in SC and then sold only in SC, thereby allowing them (they hope) to avoid the federal law phasing out incandescent bulbs in favor of CFL's. (Here's the SC light bulb story on AP if you're interested.) The bill is called the "Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act." Seriously, if the name of your bill sounds like it belongs in an SNL sketch, you should just stop right there.

I get it SC. You don't want the federal government telling you what kind of light bulbs to buy. And CFL's don't fully light up right away. And the color is different. And they're more expensive. And they have mercury. And they're not as pretty.  I know.  And you're right.

Except that there's this: when you use that incandescent light bulb, we have to burn more coal to light your house than we otherwise would. And that pollutes my air. And it uses up what I think we can all agree is a precious and finite resource: fossil fuel. We may not love coal, but it's pretty much what we've got right now, so can't we all agree that we should try to use less of it?

And (IMHO) this is really government at its best. It's making people do things that, if only one person did it, wouldn't amount to very much, but if we all do it, actually has a huge impact. And it's not just "isn't this nice" sort of impact. It's preserving our national wealth and decreasing air pollution, which is something that helps us all, i.e. just what the government is supposed to do for us.  

It reminds me of that kick-ass video where the 1959 Chevy and the 2009 Chevy are used in a crash test. (If you haven't seen it, you totally need to watch it: Crash Test Video. I'm not kidding. It's kick-ass.) The 1959 Chevy is this huge hunk of steel compared to the little plastic 2009 Chevy, but the '59 is completely destroyed.  No crumple zones. No seat belts. No air bags.Windshield goes flying off the car. The entire dashboard moves into the passenger cabin and crushes the driver / impales him with the steering column. In the '09, the passenger area remains almost completely intact. My point? None of that happens without government intervention. Without government safety standards, sure, there would be some cars that hold themselves up as the leaders in safety. But your baseline automobiles wouldn't be the amazingly safe vehicles we all benefit from having today.

So South Carolina, really? Incandescent light bulbs? I know it's a sad day, but it's time to let it go. Their time has come, just like it came for the horse-drawn carriages and Atari video game systems. If you really want to protect people's right to play Pong, fine; have at it. Just realize, it's only a matter of time. And there's probably a few more pressing issues that the people of South Carolina need you to start tending to. So get to it.

Meanwhile, I need to figure out which of those other topics I'm going to bitch about tomorrow.

Gun Rights Parable

So I have a little story to tell.  It's a fictional story, but well, you never know how fictional.

A woman, let's call her Suzy, just bought her first home. Suzy's a single mom and the house she and her daughter will now call home is farm house just outside the city limits of your typical American small town. Suzy's excited about having a home and a yard where her daughter can play, but she's concerned about the safety of her family. She knows that living in rural America, if she calls 911, it'll be 10-15 minutes before anyone would actually arrive at her house. Suzy doesn't own a gun, but has been around them all her life and knows well how to be a responsible gun owner.  Suzy decides to buy a gun.

But wait... in the town where Suzy lives, there are no gun shops. Due to laws recently passed, the nearest gun shop is a two hour drive from her home. So Suzy waits for her next day off from her job as a waitress in the town's diner, arranges to have a neighbor watch her daughter, and drives the two hours to the nearest gun shop to buy a gun.

When Suzy gets to the gun shop, she has already done her research and generally knows which gun she wants to buy.  She talks to the owner and gets some additional information about her potential purchase. She picks out a gun and prepares to make her purchase.

Wait again...

"There's a three day waiting period to buy a gun, ma'am.  Need to do a background check. So you need to fill out this form and come back in three days," the shop owner informs her.

"Couldn't I have filled this out at home," Suzy asks?

"Nope," responds the gun shop owner. "Needs to be filled out in person so I can check your ID."

"But I had to drive two hours to get here. I'll have to take another day off of work to come back."

"Sorry ma'am.  There's nothing I can do about it. And I hate to be the one to tell you, but you have to attend a gun safety class, too."

"What?"

"Yes, ma'am. After you fill out this form, you also need to attend a gun safety class before I can sell you a gun."

"But I've been handling guns my whole life."  Suzy is getting frustrated. "Who offers the classes? And how long are they?"

"There's a place just down the street that offers the classes. Class is only a few hours long."

"Down the street? But I told you I live two hours away. I have to come back and take the class and then come back again to buy the gun? This is ridiculous."

"I know ma'am. We're not a fan of the law either."

"Well, ok. I'll fill out the form, but it might be a couple months before I can get back twice for both the class and again to buy the gun."

"Um, I'm afraid that won't do. After you fill out the form, you need to buy the gun within 10 weeks or the process expires and you have to start all over again."

"What! That's crazy! I work two jobs, I had to find someone to watch my daughter, and I had to drive two hours to get here. Now you're telling me I need to do that two more times in the next 10 weeks as well as attend a class that will tell me a bunch of information I already know just to buy a gun! This is ridiculous! It's like they're trying to make it impossible to buy a gun legally."

"Yes, ma'am. I agree. It really is ridiculous."

Suzy filled out the form, left the store, and began her two hour drive back home.

Now I don't know how you feel about gun rights in America, but regardless of your position on the subject, owning a gun is legal in this country. So any laws we enact should be aimed at making it safer for gun owners and non-gun owners, should help us ensure that criminals don't buy guns, and should prevent people from becoming victims of gun violence. Laws should not be put into place where the sole intention is to make it harder for people to do what is 100% legal in this country: buy or own a gun.

But wait, there's more...

100% of what I just said absolutely, positively applies to the rights of women in this country to get an abortion. No matter your personal opinion about the morality of a woman's choice to have an abortion, it is 100% legal in this country. So no woman should have to drive two hours to see a doctor, only to be told that they have to come back three days later. No woman should be told that in those three days, they have to go see another group who will council them against the decision that they are making. No woman should have to jump through hoops designed, not to provide them with more information or better healthcare, but only designed to make it harder for them to choose to have a medical procedure that is 100% legal in this country.

So South Dakota, let me suggest that you put into place the same laws for your gun owners as you do for women in your state. My guess is that voters in South Dakota would never stand for such blatant disregard for their rights as Americans.