"States rights" or wrongs

For many years now the National Rifle Association has pleaded the case of "States Rights." They have argued that the way they read the Constitution the state has the right to have a militia. They've further argued that this allows an everyday citizen to arm himself or herself.

As Seth Meyers joked on "Saturday Night Live," however, when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, the arms in question were not Uzis or Glocks, but muskets. It's not that easy to kill a man with a musket and even if you do it, you can't kill too many at once. You couldn't conceal a musket, couldn't sneak up on anyone with your musket.

There's no evidence that the founding fathers, who couldn't possibly envision the firepower of today, would have wanted everyone to carry any type of weapon they could get their hands on - and also be able to hide them in their pockets.

It's ridiculous, therefore when the NRA argues that sane people should have the right to have a gun that can shoot thirty shots or thirty rounds. Such a gun is not a means of protection it's an offensive weapon. It's not to defend, it's to kill. I find it inconceivable that if Representative Giffords, the Federal Judge and all the people shot that day in Arizona would have been protected if they had more weapons in their hands. Who would have fired first? How many more people would have been shot in the crossfire.

Scaredycrats

I watched C-Span because I was interested in how the tax cut vote would go.

When the Democrats were in power in both houses they got very little of their agenda passed because the Republicans mostly unanimously with the help of the Blue Dogs somehow blocked most of it. They even did everything they could to stall necessary judicial appointments.

I did not believe the tax cut bill that was presented to the president, that he compromised on, would create those jobs he was led to believe. To me it was a more expensive version of the failed trickle down theory.

The vote was illuminating. On the Pomeroy amendment which dealt with the estate tax, not one Republican voted for it - again treating the president and House Democrats like dogs who are asked to beg at the table and not given any food. Then when it came to the final vote almost as many Democrats voted for passage as Republicans.

Democrats previously voted to give senior citizens $250 to help defray their medical costs, but lost that battle. The Republicans explained that the government could not afford to put that burden on future generations.

HOGWASH!

I can only hope that I am wrong and that the president and the House Democrats who were humiliated turn out to be right, especially when I was led to believe that the House Democrats were really going to fight for a better bill.

Taxes and reality

A government must protect its citizenry with an Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard but going to war is not a must.

A government must protect its borders. It must have judicial, executive, and legislative bodies. It must pay for bridges, highways, tunnels and roads. It must pay for police, firemen, sanitation people and teachers. It must pay for museums, libraries and parks. And let's not forget unemployment checks, social security, medicare, medicaid and welfare.

Governments have a lot of bills to pay and they pay these bills with revenue from our taxes.

Once in a while they even overpay for goods and services, to take care of their supporters, so that they can get elected again.

In our down economy - much of which was caused by poor legislative, judicial and executive decisions - the government still must function.

If governments can't get this money from the middle class because of the outsourcing of jobs, and loss of manufacturing jobs and refuse to get the money from the wealthy, many of whom benefited financially from the outsourcing of jobs and relocating of manufacturing, they have two alternatives:

1. They can place new fees on goods and services, or raise the fees on current services. You will pay less in "taxes" but more for mass transit, tolls, tickets, parking meters, telephone and TV bills, and anything else you use.

2. They can decrease services. They can close unemployment offices, make medical coverage more difficult, close fire houses, lessen the police force, stop fixing roads, clean the streets less, let snow pile up, and do away with bus and train routes. In short, the government can make life more miserable for you.

So when you hear a politician proclaim my opponent and his party will raise your taxes, but I won't, consider it nonsense. The politician who won't raise your taxes will either raise the fees you pay or give you less service - or both.

One way or another, regardless of your political persuasion, you pay.

What is needed of the people who represent us is to have good judgment, integrity and statesmanship. Is that too much to hope for?

Monopolies

We seem to be worrying about the wrong things in our voting and politics. What we should be worrying about is monopolistic control of our Internet, our newspapers. our radio, our television, our telephone, our insurance companies, our hospitals, our banks and our credit card companies.

When a select few extremely large corporations control our services and our elected representatives, it does not matter whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent or have no party affiliation. Everyone is powerless when a select few have the power to raise your prices and give you less service.

When they are too big to fail, they are also too big to work for the common good.

Random political thoughts

I am not a political pundit. I do not profess to have the only answer, but I find I am right more often than most political pundits, because I don't get paid to push a political agenda.

In order of interest as a guest on a political talk show here is my take.

1. Reporters who work at a newspaper.
2. Columnists who work at a newspaper.
3. Other talk show hosts, and bloggers.
4. So-called pundits.
5. People who profess to be Republican and Democratic strategists. Fortunately for them the public makes them right some of the time, especially in mid-term elections. Most of the time when they are asked a question I can guess what they are going to say. They have a ready-made agenda and mental script they adhere to.

Today I heard the latest poll for the 2012 Presidential election. I couldn't care less. In today's technological age it is possible that in two years we may be talking about someone who we do not even know. Congress is on vacation now. I don't want to hear or read about polls until they start to work on the business of laws. Hopefully they might actually try to make things better for the middle class, and for the small business community that they promise to help, but rarely do.

Punditry: Right or Wrong?

Paul Begala and many of the pundits keep saying that the Democrats lost because they were too radical in seeking too many changes. I think the opposite is true. President Obama won because he promised to make changes. His party lost in the midterms because he did not make the changes his supporters sought. To go to the middle as Begala says he should have, means keeping the status quo. That is exactly what he tried to do and failed. People wanted changes to weed out the corruption that the large corporations and lobbyists have forced on our congressional representatives. Democrats were as guilty of accepting corporate money as the Republicans.

Our President did not change the Afghanistan and Iraq policy that he said he would. He did not fight hard to end Don't Ask, Don"t Tell, as you were led to believe he would. He did not go to bat for seniors on the COLA issue. He did not go to bat for real regulation of Wall Street. He did not even fight hard enough on his big issue, Health Reform. He caved in on single pay immediately. He tried too hard to go to the middle with Republican and Blue Dog support and failed. He even supported Blue Dogs in the primaries. His policy on Israel was ambiguous. He also kept on his economic team the Wall Streeters who were partly responsible for the Bush economic policy. In short he was elected to make sweeping changes and used a poor broom.

If you look for the middle ground as a bargaining position, the only place you can compromise is a losing position especially if your opponent's position is not to give in.

Unions have learned one lesson. If you are seeking a 10 cent wage , you do not ask for a 10 cent wage you ask for a 20 cent wage and settle on a 10 cent wage. He can change things in his favor if he really uses the power of the presidency to fight for meaningful changes. You cannot put a bandaid on a problem if it needs a tourniquet.

The pundits have it wrong

For quite some time now pundits have been predicting a Republican landslide in which they take over the Congress. While I, like many other Democrats have been disappointed in President Obama's performance up until now, when we think of the alternative we are appalled. Yes, Obama oversold what he could do because he believed that he could persuade Republicans. He couldn't even get them to say maybe. Obama's continuation of the Afghanistan war and his hiring of Wall Streeters for his economic group turned off many voters on the Left, but I think they should realize that the other party would and will do the same. And do all the things those on the Left still oppose.

I do think that the Democrats have a better grass roots organization, and Election Day will come down to who does a better job of getting out the vote. I also think that the American citizenry can see behind the Tea Party candidates.

While President Bush and his Republican party was running our country into the ground where were these Tea Party patriots. In most midterm elections people who are disappointed with their elected officials sit on their hands and do not come out to vote. This election is different. The hatred that seems to be coming out demands that people come out to vote.

So go out and vote for Jim Hall in Westchester, Barbara Boxer In California, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Harry Reid in Nevada, and anyone who can help get through the Obama agenda we supported with such enthusiasm only two years ago.