Budget Zero

In recent years it is has become increasingly evident to me that those in control of the government checkbooks have one thing in common – they do not have the ability to collectively budget.  This is leading to both the current “crisis” with the federal debt ceiling, as well as state budgets such as the standoff we have here in California.

What is also becoming increasingly obvious is that the great amassing of debt is doing nothing but increasing our reliance on our creditors.  As many of our creditors may not have our nation’s best interests at heart (China comes to mind), this external influence into our internal affairs is becoming very worrisome.

Should we continue on this course I am afraid that the economic system or our very government may become so influenced by external interests that it is no longer under our control, if it does not fail completely.  At that point, any government programs that exist would become moot – we would not have them.

So, if we can foresee us on a road that leads to the destruction of all programs, and we have government that does not have the ability to chisel away at the expenditures, then the time has come to do something different.

I propose that, instead of trying to figure out what to cut in order to bring our budget inline, and trying to force deeply entrenched agencies to shrink themselves, that we start by assuming that all government programs and expenditures are cut.

You read that correctly.  Cut everything.  100%.

At this point you may be calling me a lunatic (and other names not fit to print), but follow me through this line of thought to the end.  During the presidential campaign in 2008, President Obama repeatedly stated that he would use a scalpel to work on the budget instead of a hacksaw.  Well, when the patient is dying because of rampant infection in the leg, the time for a scalpel is over – it is time to amputate to save the life of the patient.

Let us see how this could play out.  Assume at this point that we have now notified all government programs, agencies, beneficiaries, etc. that their programs are cut for the next fiscal year.

Now, obviously, we could not have a country without any government whatsoever.  That would be chaos and anarchy. What we do have now is a clean slate and, beginning with that clean slae we can begin to add expenditures back onto the budget.

The first thing that would get added would be our interest on our existing debt.  You have to pay the payments on the credit card or completely loose trust and ability to maneuver in the world.  In addition, because we know that we can not continue this pattern of paying one credit card off with another as we have done for years, we will also add a sizable chuck of payment on the principle balance as well.  This will allow us to reduce our interest payments in future budgets.

Secondly we add on 100% necessities.  For the federal government this means, primarily, the defense budget.  If you can not defend your country from foreign attackers then you will not be country for very long.  That is one reason we are getting our finances in order – to prevent outside influences in the first place.

Now we can start to entertain proposals on every other program that exists.  Each one would have to come up with a new proposal on how to deliver a necessary service or program – one that is not based on the existing agency infrastructure.  If you have essentially cut off all funding to an agency, see how fast they will come up with proposals to meet needs on a smaller, streamlined budget.

These proposals would have to have one thing very clear – the what, why, and how.  What they are doing, why they are doing it, and how they are accomplishing it.  A good legal justification would need to be attatched as well.  Each proposal should also be narrowly defined.  Why?  Because it makes it easy to line up identical or nearly identical programs.  A big house cleaning like this would give the opportunity to cut out a lot of waste, beyond simply reducing the number and scope of programs.

After you have reached a point that is at 90% of projected revenue, you stop adding things on.  Why 90%?  Have you ever seen a government expense estimate not go over budget?  This would be the icing on the cake if we ended up not spending the extra 10% over the course of the year, but history teaches us that is not likely to happen.

Am I saying cutting out Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security for seniors, etc?  No.  Programs such as these would likely be some of the earlier ones added back on, hopefully in a stream-lined form of them with less red tape and easier access to the benefits.  In an ideal situation, these programs would not be necessary, but at the current time they are a basic part of our economic system.  (I have some words of wisdom for those that would want these programs cut in this process, but I will leave that for another time.)

At this point you are probably also asking what about the [fill in the blank with your favorite program]… I would say “you have to see”.  I would like to have all of the fun and nice programs, grants, etc, but if the government can’t pay its bills, the program has little to no value anyway.  For example, I am a huge advocate for the arts, but if the government goes bankrupt, what good did it do us to fund the full National Endowment for the Arts with tax money?  Where did it leave us?  I would say cut many of these or greatly reduce them for now.  Then, we may have opportunity in the future to really do something.

This is the greatest country in the world, and with the American spirit, we can accomplish much.  It is time for us to clean our financial house to free the people – and the government – from the burden that it places on us.  Being weighed down with too much debt can harm anyone.  If you have experienced that yourself in recent years during this great recession you can appreciate what I am talking about.  When it comes to finances, debt hurts us all.

In short, it is time for a clean slate.  Now is the time to stop this top down budgeting and to flip it around and focus on that which really helps Americans – freedom and liberty.

Safety and Freedom

When a child takes their first steps, they may fall a few times in the process.  This is natural.  The child discovers that there are many rewards to being mobile.  As the child grows older there are many times when they will want to cling to their parents instead of trying new things.  It may be going to school, or staying the night at grandma’s house for the first time.  Slowly but surely, the child grows up and relies less and less on their parents, longing for more freedom.

This freedom is not without its risks.  Some parents choose to force their children into the world without truly equipping them to handle it.  Others want to smother their children in order to protect them from the cruelness in the world.

The fact is that throughout life we are constantly stepping out of our comfort zone and taking risks.  Usually, we find that it was worth the risk – even if we fail.  That is because trying something can have its own rewards, and experiences.

What is great and so critically important to this is making the choice of how much risk to take.  If we did not have the ability to make the choice, we would be insulated from the risk but would miss out on the opportunity to experience something good, maybe even something great.

By now those of you reading this have thought of times in your own lives where you stepped out, took a chance, and had success or, at least, a positive failure – one where you wouldn’t trade the experience for anything.

If the majority of people understand this concept, and I believe that we all do, then why do people continue to want to impose restrictions on others to ensure their safety?  Take any headline of the day – take your pick.  Lets see, in the past few years we have had questions about the banking industry, health insurance, oh – here is one – product recalls.

A relative of mine was on the prescription medicine Vioxx for severe back pain related to a previous on the job injury.  This medicine had been the only thing that allowed him to manage the pain to the point where he could work and live up to his full potential.  Then the product was pulled because of and increased risk of heart problems and the pressure from the FDA (I know it was “voluntary”).  Now, from everything I can tell if it had stayed on the market, he would have been at a slightly higher risk for some heart attacks and would have needed to have more regular screenings.  Instead, he is back to not being able to manage his pain and has since switched careers.  It is a quality of life issue compared to the risk – one that people make when they decide whether or not to undergo a surgery.  This is a small example, but people were cheering for it when it was pulled and furious with the drug companies for them to dare allow such a product on the market – not to mention the vulture lawyers swooping in for the kill (note: not all lawyers are vultures, but there are a lot of them).  Why not allow people the choice?

It is such a simple case, and may not be a perfect example, but the question can be posed of just about any headline involved these days.  Why do people not have the choice?  Whether it is from intrusive legislation or government trying to step up increased social pressure of some action or speech being “taboo”, it all amounts to a shrinking of our freedom.

Trading freedom for safety is not an option – it is not a fair trade.  It is a slowly leaking bucket… it may be not much to worry about at first, but when the bucket is empty we will be crying out for even a little taste of freedom.  In a county that is the “Land of the Free and the home of the Brave” I think that we can find our bravery to stand up and keep our freedom – and preserve that greatest right of all… the right to fail – to make mistakes—and to learn from them that we might be a better person tomorrow.

Dungeons, Dragons, and Morons

Apparently, the US Supreme court has ruled that Dungeons & Dragons too closely resembles the organization of a gang, and therefore meets the definition of promoting gang activity. (One article here, but there are many others)

I would like to help with this endeavor and suggest some other games that should also be banned from prisons.

• Monopoly – First of all, the game is about dominating all of the other opponents. Secondly, it teaches the capitalist system.
• Life – This game not only shows that you have a choice between college and trade school, but it encourages reproduction. It also might encourage the overloading of vehicles when the player has too many kids – this might imply drive-by shootings. The pegs falling out might give the inmate the idea to throw people from a moving vehicle.
• Mousetrap – self explanatory.
• Clue – Especially this one. There is a murder every game!
• Air Hockey – This game resembles a shoot-out as one hits a projectile toward their opponent. Definite gang activity here. (Might also apply to paper football...)
• Operation – encourages removal of organs and could encourage black market organs transplants as a gang business.

To take it a step further, maybe they should ban playing cards. After all, aren’t spades and clubs weapons?

What other games should be banned from inmates?

Exploring the berths again

Well, I thought that all of this craze about Obama's birth certificate would be finished and over by now, but it just keeps coming back.

Today a soldier has filed for conscientious objectors status because he claims that Obama was not born in the US. ( http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/776335.html )

Before we go further, let me clarify how this captain sees things, and some history..

First, I believe that President Obama is a citizen of the United States -- that is not even in question here. Secondly, I do not believe that the Certification of Live Birth that has been presented on the Internet by his campaign was forged. If someone would like me to go into more detail (I was vetting this in a previous post), I can.

Actually, there is the primary issue -- we have been shown a Certification of Live Birth, sometimes called a "short form" birth certificate. This is essentially a computer-generated report from a database that is laser-printed onto some fancy certificate stock and then stamped, signed and sealed by the clerk that the state is happy to charge a premium price for.

This short form is not really accepted for a lot of items, such as a US Passport, etc. Even the State of Hawaii may not accept it as a proof that someone was born in Hawaii.

And here is where people are still having problems -- this is the easiest thing to clear up, and yet everyone meets resistance. If someone has nothing to hide, why is such an effort made to hide it?

Now, apparently, the current hospital that is espoused as President Obama's birth hospital has been using a forged white house letter for fundraising purposed. (This and more at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103898 )

I really wish I could just sail these seas and not keep being drawn back into this berth, but it just does not seem to go away. And for those who are asking "what difference does it make?" it is simple -- if President Obama is not a "Natural Born" citizen as designated by the Constitution, then he is in office in violation of the very document that he has sworn to uphold and protect. Think about the moral ramifications of that for a moment. This would indicate in a clear-cut manor a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the foundation of this county and may indicate an attempt to undermine it. That provision is in the Constitution for a reason -- to protect against foreign interests attempting to gain control of the country.

In the mean time, we will have to settle for our government simply seizing our financial interests and selling them to China and Italy.

http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis

http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/5045/1/Barack-Obama--Natural-Born-or-Not/Page1.html

Voter Intimidation Case Ordered Dismissed

You may have missed this, but during the 2008 presidential election a polling location, some individuals were intimidating voters in Philadelphia. For refresher, I have the videos below.

Since that time, charges were filed and the court had already entered a default judgement in the case.

Apparently these charges have now been dropped against the instigators at the direct request of the US Justice Department.

I can not believe that this is happening in the United States of America. We had this problem when voters were intimidated in the South so that they would not vote out of fear. Here it is happening in reverse, and charges are completely dropped.

If we don't enforce our own laws, what good are they? If we don't have fair elections, then the people no longer have control of the county as our founding fathers created it.

Read the article and decide for yourself: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/

UPDATE (11:05 AM): Apparently some congress members are upset about this and still want to persue the case... Stay tuned...

And, the videos:

Inspecting the Berth (certification)

So after some comments were posted to my last entry, I decided I would start doing some detective work on my own. This is primarily to see if there is anything that smells fishy at this port - other than the fish. So far this is what I have learned:

• Apparently Hawaii does not readily release copies of the original Birth Certificates any longer, but instead - for most purposes - issues these Certifications, basically stating that this is the correct information as stated on the birth certificate. Other states may be doing this as well now - it has been a while since I have requested a copy of my own certificate. Also, I do not know whether that includes any addendums/ammendments to the birth certificate or not.
• If the image is correct, and the information contained on it is correct, then there should be no question as to Obama's origin. It clearly states that he was born on Oahu in Honolulu.
• Having one parent not be a natural born citizen would not be an issue, nor would they even have to be a citizen, I believe. (Sorry to "Ted" who posted the comment). Illegal aliens give birth in the United States every day, and it is often stated that they could become president one day. Whether there is a legal problem here or not I am not sure, but I do not believe that there is. If anyone has any information to refute this, please let me know.

So, with that out of the way, there are only two possible problems with Obama's birth.

1. The document is a forgery. There are many claming this. I will need to do some more research on this. It is hard to tell because it is a low-resolution JPEG that is posted on Obama's Fight the Smears site. JPEG images are netorious for introducing "artificats" that make it harder to tell what is clear and look for signs of digital manipulation.
2. Someone in Hawaii was complicit in forging the information. Since a Certification such as this is simply a computer printout that is stamped with the date requested, etc. then you would just need to have the wrong information in the computer or someone change it to change the printout.

Now, I do not believe either of these to be the truth, and tend to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii as it says on the document (as opposed to Krypton as Obama stated in jest). It does raise the question as to why one would not just simply release a copy and put this issue to bed.

There have been a number of possibilites suggested other than his elegibility. One that actually sounds plausible is that he is trying to hide a family secret, such as he had a different father listed at birth. It would be possible to make an ammendement to the certificate without altering it. In this case it would then, theoretically, also be reflected in a certification document.

The reason is not really that important, unless it does show dishonesty in meeting the threshold of "Natural Born Citizen". I think I am only smelling fish at this berth, but I am going to do a little more checking before I close this case.

As always, however, I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. I am the captain here, and it goes how I say it goes.

Obama's Berth Certificate/Certification

I do not have an opinion one way or another on this issue, but there is a new blogger named Hank Rand that did a very detailed post on the raised issues regarding Obama's birth.

If you have not been following this, there have been questions as to whether or not President-Elect Obama qualifies as a "Natural Born Citizen" to qualify to be President of the United States. Most articles I have seen do not address the actual questions, and Hank lays out the questions pretty clearly -- if everything he states is true.

The most interesting thing I learned was that Hawaii has/had both a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth. The former is what we would know as a birth certificate. The second basically validates a birth certificate and is not nearly as official or contain as much information. The latter is what Obama posted on his website. The interesting point is that in the past Hawaii would issue the Certifications based on certificates elsewhere if the parent was a resident the previous year. In other words, you could live in Hawaii, move out of the state or country temporarily, send back you certificate and still receive a Hawaiian certification.

Whether this means anything or not might be a moot point, but it is still interesting.

The full post is here.