Conservative Question -- Why Does the Department of Education Have a S.W.A.T. Team?

     

     KXTV, Sacramento, CA reported last week that the home of Kenneth Wright in Stockton was raided by a S.W.A.T. team from the United States Department of Education Office of the Inspector General (OIG).  KXTV Reporters followed all of the standard TV journalism procedures, such as interviewing Mr. Wright, and getting an official statement from U.S. Department of Education spokesman, Justin Hamilton.  In my mind, they missed one important question.  Why does the U.S. Department of Education have a S.W.A.T. team?  In fairness, I don't think the Department of Education calls their armed unit a "S.W.A.T." team but why have an armed unit at all?  

     The "mission statement' of the U.S. Department of Education is almost a full page long but the first statement is "Strengthen the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual..."  In this line or any other in the mission statement is there any sentence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the Department needs a traveling armed unit to bust down the doors of United States citizens.
     How far have we come in the last hundred years?  When the FBI was established about 100 years ago, it was questioned as to whether the Federal Government was overstepping its authority.  In 1908, people worried that the Justice Department would have too much power if it had armed officers.  Now, trained journalists don't seem concerned that the Department of Education has and armed unit.  What other government agencies have this capability?  Does the Department of Agriculture have S.W.A.T. capabilities?  If I switch my ham radio to the wrong frequency, will FCC, S.W.A.T. attack my house?  Does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have S.W.A.T. Meteorologists?  It feels bizarre that I even have to ask these questions.  The main question still remains:

WHY DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAVE A S.W.A.T. TEAM?

Debt Limit -- A Conscious Conservative View

     

     In reality, the limit on United States debt obligations will have to be raised.  Conservatives like myself would love to see the Visa card of the United States cut up and thrown in the trash.  However, Congress and the President of the United States agreed to spend this money when they voted on the budget.  The full faith and credit of the United States must be maintained in all dealings.  John Boehner and his colleagues in the House of Representatives can refuse to raise the Debt Limit temporarily and use this time to educate the American public, but only if they do it wisely.  If standing firm on the Debt Limit has the image of a cheap political trick,  the American public will be less informed.  Republicans will end up looking like a political version of the Usual Suspects.   
     As I write this, the Debt Limit has not been raised and Boehner is saying it won't be raised without, "budget cuts."  Unfortunately, he is not being specific, so the Liberals among us say that "budget cuts" are a euphemism for taking away Medicare and other social programs.  On the face, the "budget cuts" seem to be those outlined in the Ryan budget proposal.  Republicans have done a poor job of educating the public on this proposal.  If you only read the popular press, it sounds like a "Medicare Voucher" proposal and nothing more.
     Boehner and his colleagues could remedy this situation if he drops the Republican politics and call for sweeping and equal budget cuts.  The United States is spending more than we can afford on Medicare, Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood, but we also spending more than we can afford on Defense, Homeland Security and Farm Subsidies.  Boehner can seize this moment by shouting,
"No More Politics, Fair and Balanced Cuts Across the Board!!" and dare President Obama to justify another plan.  He can also pander to special interests, corporations and the military and end up being a Usual Suspect.

A Conscious Conservative Memorial Day

     Let's take a moment on this Memorial Day to celebrate the true meaning of the holiday.  Let's take a moment away from the cable TV marathons, the shopping mall sales and the BBQ parties and remember a fallen loved one or ancestor.  If you can, honor the tradition of placing flowers on the grave of one who gave their all for our country.  So many have given much so that we can live as we do today.  God Bless All of Them and God Bless The United States of America.

A Conservative Movie Review: Atlas Shrugged: Part I

     I once anticipated the release of The Informant!, a movie based on a book by Kurt Eichenwald (Serpent on the Rock, Conspiracy of Fools).  The book is a riveting story about how Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) colludes with other large agri-businesses to control the prices of corn, animal feed and basically everything we buy in grocery stores.  A funny thing happened during the making of the movie.  Somebody at the studio decided that the movie did not have enough action scenes.  They re-edited the movie, added light- hearted music, and turned a smart, complex drama into a comedy.  Luckily there was no big studio involved in the making of Atlas Shrugged:  Part I.

     My companion at the movie remarked about how the movie was "dark," both in tone and setting.  I don't know how intentional this was, but it matched how I envision Rand's work when I read it.  I think that the makers of this movie did a very good job of conveying Rand's tone.  That being said, although I find Rand thought provoking, I also find Rand wordy at times.  The movie also captured this feature well.  I am personally annoyed by the trend of stretching movies and creating unnecessary sequels to get more ticket money (Kill Bill, The Matrix, etc.).  Although I don't think more ticket money is Mr. Aglialoro’s motive, I feel that one good, long movie could have been more satisfying than a trilogy.  Gone With the Wind comes to mind.
     In Atlas Shrugged: Part I, Dagny Taggart runs the largest railroad company in America.  Her best and most competent workers start to disappear. She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden. Together, using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado.  Viewers are left wondering why all the best minds are disappearing and of course, Who Is John Galt?   
     I definitely enjoyed this movie and feel it was not the waste of time that most movies appear to be.  The people who made this movie definitely did more justice to Ayn Rand than the makers of The Informant! did to Kurt Eichenwald.  Atlas Shrugged is not an action movie, except for very fast trains.  It is not a comedy, either.  It is one of the most thought provoking movies of recent years.  I enjoyed the movie and my companion who is not a fan of Rand stated that they wished they didn't have to wait for Atlas Shrugged: Part II.  Be forewarned that the dialogue in this movie is reminiscent of the banter in 1940's films and that some of the characters will seem long winded by modern standards.  Conscious Conservatives, fans of Ayn Rand, libertarians and people who enjoy older movies like 12 Angry Men, Death of a Salesman or Double Indemnity should like Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Tax Day Reminder -- Income Taxes Are Evil

END TAXATION!!!

     At 7:00 am on a Tuesday morning, a woman and her ten year old daughter sit at a table enjoying breakfast.  A typical fall day in Midwestern America.  The mother thinks about work and the daughter eagerly awaits seeing her friends at school.

     Doors bust open as a dozen or more armed men wearing body armor fill the house.  "Where's the money!" a gunman shouts, "We want the money!"  The mother and daughter were terrorized.  The mother couldn't handle the trauma.  Three days later she was dead.  She became convinced that she attracted the gunmen, although there is no evidence of that.  She killed herself to keep her children out of harm's way.

     One would hope that local law enforcement would jump on this type of home invasion robbery.  One could hope that senior detectives would labor day and night to bring these perpetrators to justice.  They are not.  Why?  The gunmen that traumatized a family, eventually leading to the mother's death, worked for the Internal Revenue Service.  As of this time, the gunmen have received no known punishment.

     The father, who was away on business at the time of the invasion, filed a wrongful death suit.  The IRS gave it's usual response.  First, it denied all liability.  Then the IRS filed charges of tax fraud against the husband.  The husband now had to fight on two fronts.  One to preserve the memory of his wife and one to keep himself out of prison.

     As Tax Day approaches, we should remember that there was no income tax in the United States of America for the majority of its existence.  The government survived on luxury taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) and import and export tariffs.  The Founding Fathers did not put a general income tax into the Constitution because they were aware of the abuses to which an income tax would lead.  Politicians, whether well-meaning, corrupt or greedy cannot avoid the temptation of taking money from unpopular people to give to popular people.  If the unpopular people complain, they are greeted by gunmen at breakfast.  Why is it wrong for me and my friends to break into a neighbors house to steal their money, but perfectly acceptable for government agents to do it for me? 

     In the case described above, there were no allegations of failure to pay taxes until AFTER a woman was dead, a family was traumatized and a father had fought to get answers.  These incidents are inherent to any system of  Direct Taxation.  All Direct Taxes, including the Income Tax, should be abolished.

TAXES ARE EVIL!!

     

      

Conservatives Should Remember The Good Old Days

1960 Chevy Impala-One Sweet Ride

    One piece of false propaganda that seems to permeate the current federal budget talks is that programs cannot be cut because they have existed forever.  This view is spread by liberals and

conservatives alike.  Agency web sites give false histories that make them seem much older than they truly are.  The Department of Health and Human Services, established in 1980, tells its history as beginning in 1798 with "Passage of an act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen."  This false statement of antiquity is used to make the department seem more vital and indispensable.  In fact, many programs and cabinet level departments did not exist 50 years ago.  Although 50 years may seem like long ago, given that the United States is over 200 years old, it's really not that long ago and definitely not forever.

In 1960, the federal budget was about $92 Billion.  In 2010, the federal government spent about $3.46 Trillion.  Let's look at that.

1960          $92,000,000,000

2010     $3,460,000,000,000

That is a lot more money!!  More than $3.3 trillion more!!  


     The proposed 2012 budget for the Department of Transportation, established 1966, is larger than the ENTIRE federal budget in 1960.   Some programs that didn't exist in 1960 include Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Head Start, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, Food Stamps and the DEA.  Some of the cabinet level departments that didn't exist are the Departments of Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development.  Just cutting these historically new departments will save about $1.2 Trillion from the 2012 budget.   

     Was the United States really that bad of place in 1960?  I don't think so.  We should remember the "Good Old Days" and dig into all of these new programs.  There are questions that should be asked.  Did a permanent problem exist? Does this program solve that problem?  Does this program not cause any other problems that are worse than the problem the program solves? Is this program constitutional?  If the answers to all these questions are not a resounding yes, we should abolish the program.
     Remember that almost every program that the politicians say is "sacred" is relatively new when looking at the history of the United States.  Many have not been in existence for 50 years and a lot of programs didn't even exist when you were young.  Life wasn't all that bad then and most government programs don't make things better now.  Remember the "good old days" and educate the Liberals who say,"It's been this way forever."    

A Conscious Conservative Book Review : 13 Bankers

13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown

BY SIMON JOHNSON and JAMES KWAK

In the book 13 bankers, Johnson and Kwak explain the relationship between Washington D.C. and Wall Street.  They also analyze the mortgage crisis and tie it to the United States' recent economic troubles.  In the end they state that nothing has fundamentally changed and may have gotten worse since TARP and other bailouts.  They then give their recommendations for what should happen to avert economic crises in the future.  

The title of this book is taken from a meeting held at the White House on March 27,  2009.  In attendance were the heads of thirteen major U.S. banks. A main theme of this book is how bureaucrats, executives of major banks and members of the Federal Reserve float in and out of positions at each others' organizations creating an impression of incestuous relationships and a good ol' boy network that determines much of the regulatory and financial structure of banks in the United States.  This book does a good job of showing how people move from the positions of executive to government official to cabinet member and back to executive again.

This book also does a good job of analyzing the mortgage mess.  A review of comments on Amazon.com shows that some said Johnson and Kwak's explanation was too complicated and some said it was too simple.  That makes me think it was just right.  I never quite understood credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations from reading the popular.press.  This book seemed to make it clear.  The only objection is that they overemphasized the effects of deregulation on the markets and did not talk enough about government programs designed to give loans to people who couldn't afford houses contributed to bank insolvency.

The authors state that for all of the chest beating done in Washington, D.C., several years has gone by and nothing has fundamentally changed.  President Obama is still meeting with bankers in the White House and certain banks are considered "too big to fail," no matter how much they mess up.  Johnson and Kwak emphasize more regulation and nationalization.  I disagree with this.  I believe what is needed is elimination of barriers to entry in the banking system, accountability for individual executives within the large banks and abolition of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve.

I recommend reading this book due to the good job which Johnson and Kwak do of explaining the mortgage mess and the relationship between Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.