So it goes with the Federal budget deficit and our skyrocketing national debt.. If we cannot fix our fiscal situation, nothing else matters. Much like the heart, if the financial foundation of our country is destroyed, then nothing else has any importance. You cannot even talk about global warming, a national energy program, improving public schools, fighting drug addiction, defending the country, helping out the needy, creating and maintaining job growth and economic growth, nothing else. If the heart goes, it does not matter how strong your legs are or how much air your lungs can pump. Much like the heart, sound fiscal policy makes everything else possible.

The severity of our fiscal distress was recently brought to mind again while reading the May 31, 2010 issue of Business Week magazine. In a short blurb, Business Week asserted that total U.S. debt, as of May 26, was $12.996 TRILLION. Given that we are now past that date, I think it is safe to assume we have broken through the $13 TRILLION threshold. What does this mean:

- At $13 TRILLION, the average U.S. household is on the hook for about $113,000 worth of government debt. Since the government does not create wealth, it can only confiscate wealth from its citizens, at some point we are all responsible for paying down this debt.
- At $13 TRILLION, every man, woman, and child in the country is responsible for about $42,000. Thus, a family of four is on the hook for about $168,000.
- The Obama administration’s ten year budget plan calls for another $8 TRILLION or so in debt to be accumulated by the Federal government, boosting each household’s debt burden to about $175,000 if nothing is done to change the trend.
- Last summer, Forbes magazine ran an article where they estimated the total wealth of the 400 richest Americans. As an illustrative example of how big the Federal debt is, assume that the Federal government confiscated the total wealth of these 400 Americans. Their total wealth, not their income, so this confiscation would be a one time shot. The total wealth that could be confiscated was estimated by Forbes in the article to be far less than $3 TRILLION. Thus, soaking and bankrupting the rich will not come close to paying down this skyrocketing debt, every U.S. living and to be born in the foreseeable future, is responsible for a large part of this $13 TRILLION.
- From a freedom perspective, you cannot live in a free country if the political class and the government in that country burden you with such debt. By running up such a huge deficit, a deficit that we will all have to pay down or suffer the consequences of default, we lose our freedom to spend our wealth on what we want to spend it on. We cannot send our kids to a better school, start our own business, retire when we want to, help out a charity or blow it all in Las Vegas.

Give the dire situation of our county’s heart and future, what has the political class been keeping themselves busy with in the past year or so:

- Congresswoman Anna Eshoo of California and her staff were busy working on legislation to Federally regulate the sound volume on television commercials. Never mind that TV watchers can mute the sound, change the channel, leave the room to get something to eat, fast forward on their DVR machines, or just ignore the TV for 60 seconds. Why work on soaring deficits (and other major national problems) when the TV commercial sound volume issue is so pressing?
- Congressman Jim Moran and his staff were busy investigating whether male dysfunction television commercials should be banned. I did not know this was so important either. As with Ms. Eshoo, let’s ignore real budget and financial issues facing America and work on E.D. commercials.
- Congressman Thaddeus McCotter and his staff were busy working on legislation to provide up to $300 a month in income tax deductions so that the unemployed do not have to put their pets up for adoption. Maybe if his staff and he were working on how to get America working again, which would increase tax revenue to pay down the deficit, there would be no need for this ridiculous program that would never be able to be tracked and would be rife with fraud.
- Hawaiian Senator Daniel Inouye’s and his staff have been busy helping a bank in Hawaii get bailout money from the FDIC after the FDIC determined the bank was not worth saving. Turns out that the Senator had invested heavily in the bank and stood to lose a load of money unless the bank was saved by the American taxpayer.
- Ex-Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana was busy getting convicted of taking bribes and was sentenced to 13 years in prison. You may recall that Mr. Jefferson was caught with frozen bribe money in his home freezer.
- Also, Congressman Randy Cunningham was busy getting sentenced to eight years in prison for taking $2.4 million in bribes, Congressman Bill Ney was busy getting sentenced to two and a half years in prison for taking bribes, Congressman James Traficant was busy getting sentenced to seven years in prison for taking bribes, and the majority of ex-Governors of Illinois were either busy serving prison time, have served prison time, or may soon face prison time.
- 60% of the Congressional members sitting on the House Armed Services Committee were busy receiving campaign contributions from the very companies that they had previously earmarked pork barrel budget money for.
- Congressman Charles Rangel of New York was busy being investigated for a number of ethics violations including, but not limited to, non-declaration of rental income, certain assets, and other income.
- Fifty Republican Congressmen and women were developing legislation to replace Ulysses S. Grant’s picture on the $50 bill with Ronald Reagan’s picture. Given that all U.S, currency will soon be worthless unless the national debt is brought under control, this seems like a pretty useless endeavor.
- Every member of Congress has been busy in the development of the over 11,000 wasteful earmarks and pork barrel spending programs, in the latest Federal budget, for their home states and districts, the vast majority of which are nothing more than re-election badges for incumbents and all of which exacerbate the huge government deficit.

Thus, rather than solving the one major problem on which all else depends, many members of the political class chose to work problems that would probably not even make America’s top 50 concerns (TV commercials and doggie deductions), were busy taking bribes and/or serving time for taking bribes, or were busy diverting taxpayer money to their own personal benefit. Getting back to the Snoopy and Peanuts analogy, these politicians are busy putting earmuffs on cold ears and or tightening up their scarves while the body is in the middle of a massive coronary.

That is why it is critical to vote out all incumbents in November and place into office a new breed of politician that realizes what the major issues are facing this country, with fiscal soundness being the most critical. We need new representatives that can take unselfish, bold action to fix and address those issues. Listen to Snoopy, fix the heart first and then everything else is possible.

Our new book, “Love My Country, Loathe My Government – Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class” is now available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Bruno_Korschek

Still, now that the Obama Care bill has passed, now the president wants to work on a Cap and Trade Bill, which has been referred to as Cap and Tax, as it will put a cap on the amount of CO2 that coal-fired plants, and other emitters of CO2 put out, and financial penalties for such emissions, and that money collected will then be funneled towards research and development, and subsidizing alternative energy generation.

The Obama Administration of course says that they want to, once again, work in a bipartisan way. But I’d like to remind everyone that working in a bipartisan way does not necessarily mean agreeing to spend our nation into oblivion. The Republicans, presently the opposition party, should never agree to anything which would put the United States of America into more debt, or push it to the verge of bankruptcy.

There would be nothing noble about such spending, and it is quite unacceptable considering the amount of money that the Obama administration has already spent for other things. It is my sincere hope that you will consider what I’m saying, and not allow sneaky buzzwords, or promises of working together jeopardize your assessment of what’s really going on in Washington DC.

The money they are spending has to come from somewhere, and it’s going to end up coming from you the taxpayer. Whether they take it in actual taxes, or whether they tax your energy, causing your energy costs to rise in your home, or in your business, it still comes from you either way.

Working bipartisanly is one thing, civil debate, and doing what’s best for our country should be expected of our elected representatives. But quite frankly when they get together on the same team and start spending this nation into oblivion, then we have a problem. And when the American people have a problem with our elected representatives, it’s time to vote the bums out of office, all of them, especially if they’re working in a bipartisan way, with the Obama Administration. Please consider all this.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes it’s hard to write 20,000 articles; http://www.bloggingcontent.net/

Note: All of Lance Winslow’s articles are written by him, not by Automated Software, any Computer Program, or Artificially Intelligent Software. None of his articles are outsourced, PLR Content or written by ghost writers.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

Scott Brown’s successful campaign was no different than those before his. Brown seized on the anger and fury of the voters in his state, much like Obama did just a little over a year ago. This is typical American politics. When one party seizes the swing of favoritism of voters, the other party simply sits back and waits until the party in charge screws up. Once the party in charge does screw up, the other party pounces on the hot issues and proclaim they possess the change that is needed. The problem with this philosophy is that the “change” is always short lived. Once the other party comes back into control it is back to business as usual. And thus the never ending cycle of swing politics continues.

However, the American public is quickly growing weary of swing politics and the types of candidates they produce. So who are some of the candidates America no longer need? America does not need another chameleon for a candidate. A chameleon does what is popular at the moment. America does not need a hide and seek candidate. This is the candidate that hides when his/her party is out of favor and then reappears when the swing comes back their way. America does not need the bully candidate. This is the candidate that bullies the party out of power. America does not need the whining kid that points and blames candidate. This is the candidate that is being bullied.

And who is the candidate America needs and wants? That is a very good question. Americans have put up with all the above type candidates for so long it is not clear what a real candidate is suppose to look like anymore. Perhaps a real candidate is honest, hard working, dedicated, eager to serve, willing to listen and capable of working with the opposing party on sensitive issues. Maybe they adhere to the “agree to disagree” saying, while being willing to compromise without compromising their dignity and values. A real candidate may possess the ability to overcome the dark desires of selling out in order to stay in office. That quality seems most elusive. Whatever the real candidate looks like, America is impatiently awaiting their arrival. And unless both Republican and Democrat start hearing what Americans are really trying to tell them, neither party will be safe in the upcoming 2010 elections.

Timothy Sweezy
http://timsweezy.blogspot.com
Writing for me is not a profession but a passion. It is an art form that evolves with the author and is expressed for the world to see.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Timothy_Sweezy

The Doctrine was intended to promote diversity in media opinions, but was deemed a hindrance to free speech and finally abandoned in 1985 under President Reagan’s administration.

Although the Doctrine has been out of practice for more than twenty years, there have been attempts to bring it back, most resulting from claims that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves and that it needs to be balanced with more liberal voices.

The latest attempt is currently alive and being debated in Congress, with Representatives such as Dennis Kucinich showing their support for new legislation that would resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.

Those For the Fairness Doctrine
Proponents of the Fairness Doctrine have, at the heart of their argument, a concern for the welfare of “the people”. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) put it this way, “The airwaves should be used for public benefit. It’s broadcasters’ one obligation for condition of license”. The belief is that airwaves are “public”, and should be regulated so that the interests of the public are taken care of. Thus, someone (the FCC) should be authorized to regulate the media given out so that a diversity of opinions is present.

In order to achieve this diversity of opinions, “we need to…break up the major media conglomerates”. According to Fairness Doctrine promoters, since the abandonment of the Doctrine, there have been fewer and fewer owners who have bought more and more broadcasting licenses. They would like to see more competition by limiting the amount of media outlets that can be owned by one conglomerate.

Opponents of the Doctrine
Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine have several objections, ranging from the unconstitutionality of the Doctrine, to its bad effects on business, to the claim that it does the opposite of what it was intended to do. Their strongest argument, legally, is that the Fairness Doctrine limits free speech.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. The Fairness Doctrine limits the amount of one side of a debate that can be aired, by requiring that the other side be given the same amount of time.

The “Hush Rush” Bill
Another argument against the Doctrine is that it is bad for the talk radio business. Talk radio tycoons like Rush Limbaugh rose to power after the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, a feat that would not have occurred were the Doctrine still in place.

Talk radio hosts earn their fame and money by having very strong, one-sided opinions which they share every weekday for about three hours a day. If the Fairness Doctrine were in place, broadcasters would have to air three additional hours of talk shows per day with an opposing viewpoint. This becomes very difficult and costly to manage, which leads to financial troubles for the talk radio powers that are already well established.

Broadcasters feel that the obligation to air opposing viewpoints would hurt them financially because those who listen to the talk radio hosts usually agree with the host’s opinions, which is why they listen in the first place. If required to air views that contradict those of the listeners, then listeners will stop tuning in and find alternatives. For this reason the Fairness Doctrine was given the epithet the “Hush Rush” bill.

The Verdict
So, which is more important: public ownership of the radio waves or free speech? The battle line is drawn almost uniformly between party lines.

Democrats want the media to be owned by the public and regulated by the government. Republicans pursue their hands-off approach by arguing for free speech and the power of the market.

If one were to look towards the principles this country were founded upon, then principles such as freedom in the market and freedom of the press would stand out as strong supporters for the continued abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine, though well-intentioned, would not have constructive consequences on the American people, their opinions, or their beloved radio broadcasts.

Damien Olenslager loves big ideas. bitesizeidea.com is my attempt to spread bite size ideas to the world. I want normal people like you and me to understand how to live happier, healthier, financially secure lives.

Sign up for free bite size ideas here: bitesizeidea.com/get-free-bite-size-ideas.

And make sure to pick up my free guide to simple investing: Minimalist Investing Guide.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Damien_Olenslager

In the southern part of the Philippines a political war has been waging on between two families for decades it’s not just your simple he said she said propaganda, the fighting between the two families having left many innocent bystanders dead. With the gubernatorial race starting to heat up one candidate in the race Ismael Mangudadatu has not only had his lives threaten from political rival the Amputuan clan during the course of the current election but he has also lost close family members in the process.

Earlier this weak whiles candidate Mangudadatu family members and supporters were traveling through rival Amputuan Township to file paperwork in the provincial capital for the elections in May 2010 they were high jacked and massacred. In all 46 people were killed in two separate attacks. The first attacks left a total of 24 people dead bodies riddled with bullets; between the victims were Mangudadatu’s wife and his two sisters. The second attack not that far away claimed 22 more supporters of Mangudadatu’s that were left piled up in hillside grave including a very visual pregnant woman. Out of the 46 victims 20 were journalist just doing their jobs covering the political campaign.

Because of the latest incidents that have taking place in the southern region of the Philippines, president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has placed the region under emergency rule to find those guilty of the heinous crimes described as the worst massacre in recent Philippines history. Under emergency rule army forces will conduct random searches and checkpoints to try to locate the gunmen responsible for the crimes.

While investigators try to find witnesses to come foreword to help find the perpetrators, no one really wants to come foreword fearing retaliation from the warlords or militia that is most likely responsible. One witness who would not give his name said, “There were about 12-militia gunman accompanied with local police”. So far National police chief Jesus Versosa has placed the police chief responsible for controlling the area and three other officers one being a person considered to be a suspect into a camp until the investigation is over.

One thing is clear whoever is responsible for the attacks planned it out ahead of time gave the fact that the graves that some of the bodies were placed in was carefully dug up ahead of time. As the investigators look farther into the details of the case, they are starting to discover not only do the Ampatuan family who are considered partners with warlords and deadly militia’s control the people in the towns but also many of the police officers around the area.

While the recent killings have shocked the Philippines nation, given the fact that the southern region is the poorest area in the country, violence similar to the recent massacre have taken place before. Since the 1970’s over 120,000 people have lost their lives to political wars in the southern region. Until the Philippines government officially steps in and take over the area from certain powerful families that run the region with an iron fist, murders and kidnappings will continue throughout every election leaving more innocent people to die.

You can watch all the latest news and event in crystal clear high-definition on Dish Network.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Shamont_Mazyck

The 1,100 page draft bill offers more sweeping change than legislation that has recently been proposed by the White House and in the House of Representatives. Senator Dodd’s proposal removes most of the Federal Reserve’s banking oversight and consumer protection powers, leaving it the primarily in charge of monetary policy. Additionally, the bill calls for the establishment of a “Super Regulator” to oversee all banks. This new agency, called the Financial Institutions Regulatory Administration, would absorb the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. It would also assume banking oversight powers currently held by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit of Insurance Corp.

The idea of a single banking regulator is sure to be controversial. In fact, the American Bankers Association has already voiced its opposition, citing the failure of a similar system in Great Britain. Additionally, small community banks are opposed to a single banking regulator based system. As it stands, the FDIC works in conjunction with the states to regulate state-chartered banks. Under the new plan a special community banking division would be created within the super regulator, forcing the same agency to focus on both the largest and smallest banking institutions.

Senator Dodd’s plan would also create an Agency for Financial Stability. Headed by a board of directors that includes the Treasury secretary, the Federal Reserve chairman and other top regulators, the stability agency would oversee financial practices that could potentially threaten the entire financial system. It would also be granted new powers to break up “too-big-to-fail” companies.

The bill’s creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency is sure to be a sticking point with Republicans and big bank supporters. This agency would oversee bank products like mortgages and credit cards. A similar agency is included in the House of Representatives version of the bill and the opposition to this requirement has been fierce. In order to pass the House bill, exceptions to stronger rules were included for industries like auto dealers and title insurers.

As expected, the proposal would impose new restrictions on the troubled derivatives market and on credit rating agencies. It would also require hedge funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Additionally, the draft includes provisions that would reshape the way that the 12 regional Federal Reserve Boards are structured.

Senator Dodd’s proposed legislation has a long way to go before consideration on the Senate floor. In fact, his draft proposal is already hitting roadblocks within his own committee. With such sweeping change to so many regulatory agencies and practices, it will be interesting to follow the progress or sudden death of this aggressive proposal. If the recent fireworks in the House of Representatives are any indication, it’s sure to be a good show.

About the Author

Reggie Britt is a consumer loan software developer for institutions serving the small loan customer. His Kwik-Loan software can help companies change their lending focus due to payday lending changes.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Reggie_Britt

The Past:

It was in the year 1984 that Reagan corroborated his support by claiming nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried 49 of the 50 states. The Reagan Democrats, who were mainly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers of the Northeast, were Democrats earlier but voted for the Republican in favor of Reagan’s social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his hawkish foreign policy. However, these voters who brought landslide victories to Ronald did not vote for the Republicans in 1992 and 1996. Thus, the popular term “Reagan Coalition” soon fell into abandonment, except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is now usually used to describe the southern whites who permanently changed party affiliation from Democrat to Republican during the Reagan administration, and they have largely remained Republican to this day.

The Founding Principles of the Coalition:

• Individual Liberty
• Personal Responsibility
• National Security
• Limited Federalist National Government
• Free Market Capitalism
• Traditional American Values
• The Rule of Law

The Present: Obama Heading the Carter Way:

The biggest question that needs to be answered today is whether Obama can create a sensation and improve his favorable rating, which has recently dropped down to the below-50 mark, by revivifying the dilapidated Reagan Coalition. Obama’s radical and expensive policies have caused his approval ratings to tank in a very short span of time. Several Conservatives have already started to believe that President Obama is headed more and more in a Jimmy Carter direction. With President’s high expenses, government control of the economy, especially on energy, and apparent signs of retreat abroad, it seems like Jimmy Carter has again won his second term of office, 28 years after getting booted by the American electorate!

The Future: Are We Ready for Another Reagan Coalition?

Reagan had established himself into a redoubtable candidate by discussing politics and philosophy on the speaking circuit for years and then adhering to conservative values as the governor for 8 long years. it was his clear optimism that allowed him to form the coalition. He led the coalition to power in 1980 and people were aware about the agenda that he would follow as a President. But, the point of interest here is that it took a Carter to put Reagan in Office. If we go by what most Conservatives are feeling today, we already have a Carter ready in form of President Obama. But, do we have a Reagan ready to go? Years 2010 and 2012 will give Conservatives a golden opportunity to revive a kind of ‘Reagan Coalition’ if they could find a candidate who has the experience and credibility in office and activism to give it that kind of strength.

Find similar articles and more on Reagan Coalition Future at ReaganCoalition.Com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Eshwarya_Patel