Privacy and Government Data Collection

Many Americans are worried about their privacy – at least as far the government is concerned. Yet, as a nation, we seem totally oblivious to all the information about us which is collected by a variety of private businesses. And, most of that information is readily available to anyone willing to pay for it.

Long ago, I worked for a company which routinely conducted “background checks” (for lack of a better name) on individuals and businesses seeking a business relationship with us. This was long before the Internet. Someone from my company would contact our “research” company, provide the information we had, and request a report. There were different “levels” of reports offered, from a very basic look at publicly available records, on up to a “full detail” report.

The “full detail” reports on individuals were very detailed, including not just financial information, but also the names and ages of family members. They included a narrative of a researcher's visit to their homes and places of business. Frequently, they would include a summary of private interviews with the subject and/or their family members and/or their neighbors (which were conducted using some kind of ruse to hide their purpose). I gained a healthy respect for the amount of information available – for a price - back then.

These days, much of the same information is readily available online. Not long ago I went looking for “lost” alumni so that a reunion committee could contact them. Using names from 40 years ago, and the location of the school as a starting point, I was able to find 9 out of the 10 people I searched for - without paying a dime to a third party “information consolidator” or "researcher."

If I can find “private” information about former classmates, I've got to believe that the government can do so also, augmenting their information with freely available online information. Or, if they want more in-depth information, they could pay a “private research” company to provide a report (requesting it through a “shell company” to hide the fact that the government is paying for the report).

So... Do I worry about my government collecting all the numbers I dialed (or received calls from) last week on my phones? No. My phone companies already have all the numbers in their databases. And, they may have already "mined" them for their information value.

If my phone contacts can help in catching a terrorist, so much the better. 

Hell, on the right day, I might even be more than willing to just turn over my mother-in-law's name, phone number, and street address directly to the government for their investigation.

But that's a story for another day.

2014 Election Observations

The day after election day, the sun rose in the sky, as it always does. I didn't see it, as it was overcast and rainy in my area.

As I watched the election returns from around the country, I thought about citizens from around the world who live in countries which have never seen a peaceful transfer of power. While our nation's elections certainly can't be described as “peaceful,” at least our nation's usual transfers of power have not been accompanied by gunfire and deaths.

As with most elections, I like to say “I voted for a bunch of losers... Some of which won.”

I guess it's my way of saying that no candidate is perfect. I'm not perfect. My friends and family aren't perfect. In fact, the only ones I know who are “perfect” are the “church ladies,” if only in their own minds. And, I love them for it.

For me, this year's election results were mixed. I was very pleased that most of Minnesota's voters didn't punish our state's success by voting out the Democrats responsible for it. Unfortunately, some in Minnesota, and many in other states weren't so enlightened.

I was very pleased that all of Minnesota's top officers were reelected, despite the fact that Governor Mark Dayton had pushed through “a record $2.1 billion tax hike," at a time when seemingly all Republicans were calling for more tax cuts (for the wealthy) to get our economy moving. Oh, I forgot, Governor Dayton's tax hikes were targeted toward the wealthy. The top 1% of earners will pay most of the new taxes, the middle class was left unscathed. While Republicans like to call such hikes “punishing success,” Governor Dayton didn't see it that way.

During this election cycle, I did hear one or two Republicans repeat the phrase they've used for as long as I can remember "He raised our taxes." The fact is, most Minnesotans did not see a tax hike. The very wealthy did. And, the wealthy are still doing just fine.

Governor Dayton's predecessor, Tim Pawlenty, had carefully groomed himself for a Presidential bid. He cut taxes (for the wealthy). He cut spending on damn near everything, including Minnesota's schools (although the cuts were sometimes called “slowing the rate of growth” of spending). Every year was full of drama, as Governor Pawlenty cut spending (and programs) to balance the budget, rather than raising taxes. Sometimes, “creative accounting” methods had to be used. These included delaying payments, and “borrowing” (stealing) funds designated for schools.

In contrast, Governor Dayton promptly “spent” the money raised by the new taxes. Some was used to balance the state's budget, without the need to cut valuable programs (and without the drama of previous years). The rest was used to repay the money “borrowed” (stolen) from the state's school districts, and to invest in Minnesota's future. In addition to investing in some public-private development projects, Minnesota invested in K-12 education, including state funded all-day kindergarten. The state also invested in higher education, to help ensure Minnesota's future success.

By contrast, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin took the opposite tact. Like former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Governor Walker aspires to be President. He has chosen to cut state programs, rather than even considering raising taxes. He added another nail to the coffin for Wisconsin's middle class by abolishing Civil Service collective bargaining rights for most of Wisconsin's (middle class) public employees. He cut state funding for K-12 education by more than 15% . While Minnesota embraced “Obamacare,” and expanded its Medicaid coverage, Governor Walker rejected both ideas. Minnesota had some of the lowest premiums in the nation for insurance policies purchased on its state exchange, Wisconsin's premiums were much higher.

Minnesota's already low uninsured rate improved under Governor Dayton, and Minnesota is, once again, investing in its future.

Wisconsin's economic growth has lagged Minnesota's economic growth.

While two, four, or even ten years, may not be enough time to properly evaluate the long term consequences of the “invest” versus the “cut” strategies of Minnesota and Wisconsin (or the strategies of our nation's other states), I like Minnesota's prospects much more than I do those of Wisconsin.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have elected two very different Governors. I know that a policy of cuts, as championed by former Presidential hopeful, Governor Tim Pawlenty, was not beneficial for Minnesota. But, perhaps, Governor Walker can make it work in Wisconsin.

I doubt it. But, it is an interesting experiment to test an unproven economic theory. And, no matter what the outcome, I'm confident Governor Walker will declare it to be a success during his Presidential campaign.

I prefer to see my state, and our nation, move forward.

Successful businesses are constantly investing in their futures. Businesses which are constantly “cutting” may see some temporary “success,” but typically they're in a fatal downward spiral.

I believe that the same holds true for our states, and our nation. Minnesota is growing. Wisconsin's downward spiral has yet to be stemmed.

Time will tell.

Vote for Your Nation

This year's attack attack ads have been brutal as ever. They may cause some to consider turning their backs and not vote. Resist that thought.

Vote.

The attack ads might make you want to vote for a third party candidate as a “protest vote.” Unless you honestly believe that the third party candidate is the best candidate (and has a real chance to win) don't consider voting for them. You'll only succeed in allowing others to choose the winner. A “protest vote” says nothing, and may just result in a truly bad candidate being elected.

If you're a single issue voter, please stop. Our nation (and our world), is an increasingly complex place, with many interlocking parts. Voting for a candidate based on a single issue is dangerous, as you're ignoring many other issues which may be equally – or more – important than your single issue.

Ignore politicians who say that they have a “simple, common sense solution” to deal with an issue or a problem. Our world is complex. There are no “simple solutions.” A politician who believes that there are clearly does not understand the problem.

Cutting taxes (for the wealthy), to solve every problem is not a real solution, no matter what a politician might say.

Explore where your candidate stands on all the issues, not just your core issues. Also consider our nation's Constitutional protections. If your core issues become become law, are they likely to pass constitutional muster?

Consider the issue of gay marriage.

Many religious leaders were (and are) against gay marriage. One of the core groups in the Republican base is religious conservatives. In addition to providing some funding, religious conservatives provide a strong block of votes for Republican candidates. It's imperative to the goals of the Republican Party that they keep these key members of their base happy, as there aren't enough rich white men to allow Republicans to win elections.

Republicans initially had great success in pushing through anti-gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments in many states. They used deeply religious citizens to supply needed votes. Clearly, the Republicans, and the voters in those states which passed such laws, were putting their religious beliefs (or their lust for power) ahead of our nation's Constitution. Eventually, the courts will reverse the unconstitutional laws.

I find it sad that some continue to want “their” religious “laws” written into our nation's laws. If allowed, what's to stop a future religious group from subjecting future generations to “their” religious laws, rather than “our” religious laws? Only by keeping our nation's laws separate from religious “laws” can our nation hope to offer religious freedom for generations to come.

Remember, when you vote, you're helping to set the course for our nation. Do you really want to vote for candidates whose party thought it was okay to start two expensive wars, while for the first time in our nation's history, cutting taxes (for the wealthy)?

Deficits were not an issue as a Republican administration was borrowing money to pay for our nation's wars - and our nation's tax cuts (for the wealthy). But, deficits became important very quickly when a Democrat was elected to be President. 

Republicans were more than willing to shut down our government if they couldn't have their way. And, Republicans even threatened to allow – for the first time ever – our nation to default on its debt, a strategy which experts said would plunge our nation – and the world – into an economic depression.

I fail to understand how voters can justify such reckless, and nation weakening, behavior by politicians that they choose to repeatedly re-elect.

I encourage voters to look closely at those politicians who claim to be patriotic and speak about supporting our Constitution, yet repeatedly act to weaken our nation and disrespect our Constitution.

Vote for candidates who will move our nation forward, not for ones who would destroy it. Contrary to the views of most Republicans, our nation is strongest when our government (of the people) is strong. Vote for country, not an for unproven ideology. 

Vote. Always vote.

Sex, Lies, and Political Ads

My wife and I were talking about this year's political attack ads. You know, the ones we all hate, even when they're attacking the "other" candidate, not "our" candidate.

Anyway... My wife tells me that one of her friends swears that she has yet to see an attack ad during her favorite daytime "soap opera."

I find the claim hard to believe. But, it makes me wonder. I have no idea what the current marketing demographic breakdown is for such programs.

I suspect, however, that an audience accustomed to seeing sex, lies, drama, and "secret agendas" on a daily basis might just be too smart to be fooled by a political attack ad.

Politicians Who Favor Discrimination - Part 2

At this time of year, as we celebrate our nation’s Independence Day, it’s a good time to acknowledge the progress Minnesotan’s have made toward delivering on our nation’s Constitutional promise of Freedom and Equality for all.

Last November, I was pleased that Minnesota voters rejected a proposed state Constitutional Amendment which would have written illegal discrimination into Minnesota’s Constitution.

I was also pleased that in 2013 duly elected politicians in the State of Minnesota enacted a “Freedom to Marry” law, removing yet another obstacle to freedom and equality for all. We should celebrate the politicians who voted in favor of freedom and equality. They deserve praise for their votes, without needing the “cattle prod” of a Supreme Court decision to force them in the right direction.

The politicians whose names appear below do not deserve our respect. They have shown (or, in some cases, have continued to show) that they are unfit to hold public office anywhere in our great nation. In the year 2013 they chose to disrespect our nation and our nation’s Constitution. They voted to deny freedom and equality for all. They voted for illegal discrimination.

Our nation’s Constitution promises freedom and equality for all - not just for White, Christian, English language speaking, heterosexuals – but, for all. Attempting to limit the freedom of minority groups only serves to weaken Constitutuional protections for all.

One of the more disturbing elements heard during the Minnesota Senate “debate” on HF-1054 was when Senator Paul E Gazelka (R-9, Nisswa) submitted an amendment which would have gutted decades of equal rights protections by allowing someone with “sincerely held religious beliefs” to deny services, accommodations, or goods to anyone based on those beliefs. Further, it would have invalidated the entire “Freedom to Marry Act” if any of its provisions - such as those contained in the proposed amendment - were found to be unconstitutional. Rightfully, the amendment was defeated (but, sadly, twenty-six misguided Senators voted to allow illegal discrimination based on religious beliefs).

Religious beliefs should never be allowed to trump the freedom and equality promised in our nation’s Constitution and laws. While one of our promised freedoms is freedom of religion, it does not allow the beliefs of any religion to invalidate our Constitution and laws. We are free to follow our religious beliefs and customs as long as they don’t conflict with our nation’s Constitution and laws.  

In May, 2013, the following Minnesota politicians voted against freedom and equality (HF-1054). They voted for illegal discrimination. As noted below, some of them are two and three time offenders - having previously voted for the proposed Constitutional Amendment to add illegal discrimination to Minnesota’s Constitution and/or having voted for an amendment to allow illegal discrimination based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Every day they should be reminded by family (especially their children and grandchildren) and friends that voting against our country is wrong. If they seek reelection or election to another office, voters should think carefully before voting. If these individuals are willing to vote to weaken our Constitutionally protected freedoms, what other bad decisions are they capable of making?

Rep Jim Abeler (R-35A, Anoka) (x2)

Rep Tony Albright (R-55B, Prior Lake)

Sen Bruce D Anderson (R-29, Buffalo) (x3)

Rep Mark Anderson (R-09A, Lake Shore)

Rep Paul H Anderson (R-12B, Starbuck) (x2)

Rep Sarah Anderson (R-44A, Plymouth) (x2)

Rep Bob Barrett (R-32B, Lindstrom) (x2)

Rep Michael Beard (R-55A, Shakopee) (x2)

Sen Michelle R Benson (R-31, Ham Lake) (x3)

Rep Mike Benson (R-26B, Rochester) (x2)

Sen David M Brown (R-15, Becker) (x3)

Sen Roger C Chamberlain (R-38, Lino Lakes) (x3)

Rep Tony Cornish (R-23B, Vernon Center) (x2)

Sen Gary H Dahms (R-16, Redwood Falls) (x3)

Rep Kurt Daudt (R-31A, Crown) (x2)

Rep Gregory M Davids (R-28B, Preston) (x2)

Rep Matt Dean (R-38B, Dellwood) (x2)

Rep Bob Dettmer (R-39A, Forest Lake) (x2)

Rep Steve Drazkowski (R-21B, Mazeppa) (x2)

Rep Sondra Erickson (R-15A, Princeton) (x2)

Rep Dan Fabian (R-01A, Roseau)  (x2)

Sen Michelle L Fischbach (R-13, Paynesville) (x3)

Rep Mary Franson (R-08B, Alexandria) (x2)

Rep Patti Fritz (DFL-24B, Faribault)

Sen Paul E Gazelka (R-9, Nisswa) (x3)

Rep Steve Green (R-02B, Fosston)

Rep Glenn Gruenhagen (R-18B, Glencoe) (x2)

Rep Bob Gunther (R-23A, Fairmont) (x2)

Rep Tom Hackbarth (R-31B, Cedar) (x2)

Sen Dan D Hall (R-56, Burnsville) (x3)

Rep Rod Hamilton (R-22B, Mountain Lake) (x2)

Sen David W Hann (R-48, Eden Prairie) (x3)

Rep Jerry Hertaus (R-33A, Greenfield)

Rep Mary Liz Holberg (R-58A, Lakeville) (x2)

Rep Joe Hoppe (R-47B, Chaska) (x2)

Sen Karin Housley (R-39, Saint Mary's Point)

Rep Jeff Howe (R-13A, Rockville)

Sen Bill G Ingebrigtsen (R-8, Alexandria) (x3)

Rep Brian Johnson (R-32A, Cambridge)

Rep Tim Kelly (R-21A, Red Wing)

Rep Debra Kiel (R-01B, Crookston) (x3)

Sen Mary Kiffmeyer (R-30, Big Lake) (x2)

Sen Lyle J Koenen (DFL-17, Clara City) (x2)

Rep Ron Kresha (R-09B, Little Falls)

Rep Ernest G Leidiger (R-47A, Mayer) (x2)

Sen Warren E Limmer (R-34, Maple Grove) (x3)

Rep Kathy Lohmer (R-39B, Stillwater) (x2)

Rep Tara Kay Mack (R-57A, Apple Valley) (x2)

Rep Joe McDonald (R-29A, Delano) (x2)

Rep Denny McNamara (R-54B, Hastings) (x2)

Sen Jeremy R Miller (R-28, Winona) (x3)

Rep Pam Myhra (R-56A, Burnsville) (x2)

Sen Carla J Nelson (R-26, Rochester) (x3)

Rep Jim Newberger (R-15B, Becker)

Sen Scott J Newman (R-18, Hutchinson) (x3)

Sen Sean R Nienow (R-32, Cambridge) (x3)

Rep Bud Nornes (R-08A, Fergus Falls) (x2)

Rep Tim O'Driscoll (R-13B, Sartell) (x2)

Rep Marion O'Neill (R-29B, Buffalo)

Sen Julianne E Ortman (R-47, Chanhassen) (x3)

Sen David J Osmek (R-33, Mound) (x2)

Sen John C Pederson (R-14, Saint Cloud) (x3)

Rep Joyce Peppin (R-34A, Rogers) (x2)

Rep John Petersburg (R-24A, Waseca)

Sen Eric R Pratt (R-55, Prior Lake) (x2)

Rep Cindy Pugh (R-33B, Chanhassen)

Rep Duane Quam II (R-25A, Byron) (x2)

Sen Julie A Rosen (R-23, Fairmont) (x3)

Rep Linda Runbeck (R-38A, Circle Pines) (x2)

Sen Carrie L Ruud (R-10, Breezy Point) (x2)

Rep Tim A Sanders (R-37B, Blaine) (x2)

Rep Mary Sawatzky (DFL-17B, Willmar)

Rep Joe Schomacker (R-22A, Luverne) (x2)

Rep Peggy Scott (R-35B, Andover) (x2)

Sen David H Senjem (R-25, Rochester) (x3)

Sen Dan Sparks (DFL-27, Austin)

Sen LeRoy A Stumpf (DFL-1, Plummer) (x2)

Rep Chris Swedzinski (R-16A, Ghent) (x2)

Rep Tama Theis (R-14A, Saint Cloud)

Sen David A Thompson (R-58, Lakeville) (x3)

Rep Paul Torkelson (R-16B, Saint James) (x2)

Rep Mark Uglem (R-36A, Champlin)

Rep Dean Urdahl (R-18A, Grove City) (x2)

Sen Bill Weber (R-22, Luverne)

Sen Torrey N Westrom (R-12, Elbow Lake)

Rep Anna Wills (R-57B, Apple Valley)

Rep Kelby G Woodard (R-20A, Belle Plaine) (x2)

Rep Kurt Zellers (R-34B, Maple Grove) (x2)

Rep Nicholas Zerwas (R-30A, Elk River)

(x2) = Two time loser

(x3) = Three time loser (based on the Gazelka amendment vote - only Senators were eligible; it is unknown how Representatives would have voted if a similar amendment had been offered in the House)

Note: While every effort has been made to properly identify the guilty, errors may have occurred in transcribing the data found on the State of Minnesota web site. Please let me know if corrections need to be made.

Four more years of...

I know how dejected Republicans must feel today.

I grew up as part of a large, staunchly Republican, extended family. Over the years, a few family members actually ran for public office as Republicans; and, some even won. My immediate family, and I, actually campaigned for the original “Mr. Conservative,” Barry Goldwater, during his failed 1964 campaign for President. I was “totally bummed” when “my guy” was easily defeated. He received only 39% of the popular vote, which translated into just 52 votes in the Electoral College. President Lyndon Baines Johnson received 486 Electoral College votes.

Even in defeat, Barry Goldwater was still widely respected in Arizona (he was a five term U.S. Senator from Arizona).

Yet, in his later years, the Republican Party of Arizona turned on him. Some members even demanded that his name be removed from the Arizona Republican Party Headquarters building. His “sin” was that, like most Republicans of his generation, he had become “far too liberal” for an increasingly conservative, and militant, Republican Party.

Barry Goldwater actually came out in support of allowing gays to serve in the military. He also worked with a bipartisan group to eliminate job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He was quoted as saying that “gays have a constitutional right” to be who they are. He was, of course, very right, when his Party had become so very wrong.

Barry Goldwater was also highly critical of the Republican Party’s increasing embrace of the “Religious Right.” He angered Republicans by openly endorsing a Democrat, rather than the good “Christian Conservative” candidate that they had endorsed. Barry’s candidate won.

At some point, I became aware of Barry’s having been labeled as being “too liberal” for the Republican Party. Not long before his death, I wrote and asked him about it. His reply was that his positions were simply “common sense.” I wrote back, and said “I agree.” After over 100 years of solid Republican Party support, the majority of my extended family had left the once proud Republican Party due to the destructive path they’d chosen to follow.

Barry Goldwater is just one of many past prominent Republicans who would not meet current Republican Party “standards.” Some others would include:

• Abraham Lincoln – He failed to respect “State’s Rights.” He interfered with private businesses (slavery was "necessary if their businesses were to survive"). And, he took private property (their slaves) without compensation.

• Dwight D. Eisenhower – He expanded Social Security. He interfered with “State’s Rights” by sending federal troops to Arkansas to enforce public school desegregation. And, he initiated a massive public works project which created the Interstate Highway System (a system which continues to irritate thousands of drivers a day as they commute to and from work).

• Ronald Reagan – He actually negotiated with Democrats and compromised when necessary to secure a deal. He even raised taxes (contrary to the revisionist teachings of Grover Norquist and the modern day Republican Party).

The Republican Party of today is clearly in trouble. Demographic trends are against them. There simply aren’t enough rich white men to consistently elect Republicans. And, while “Christian Conservatives” have been successfully exploited to provide reliable Republican votes, younger voters overwhelmingly reject the divisiveness caused by inflexible religious doctrine. Even most strongly religious individuals have come to realize that the U.S. Constitution won’t allow discriminatory religious doctrine to be the law in our nation. Besides, Christians too have been hurt by the irresponsible fiscal policies of the Republican Party.

If the Republican Party is to remain relevant in the future, they must purge the extremists - who have led them astray - from their ranks. They must accept responsibility for the Bush years, and admit that starting two wars while giving huge tax cuts to the very wealthy was not responsible. They must pledge to negotiate in good faith to move our nation forward. They must renounce pledges to powerful special interest groups which prevent them from putting our nation first. They must stop using divisive “social issues” to win votes. It’s not healthy for our nation.

And, Republicans must recognize and embrace that we are a diverse nation – not simply a nation of rich white men. For the strength of the Republican Party, and more importantly, the strength of our nation, they must embrace our nation’s diversity and learn to represent all Americans, not just the favored few.

To be sure, I don’t expect to see such changes any time soon. The modern day Republican Party “brand” is quite opposed to it, and their core voters are very committed to their narrow agendas. Besides, the very wealthy are very pleased with Washington gridlock, as it allows them to continue to benefit from historically low tax rates.

Watch closely what Republicans do over the next two years – especially those Grover Norquist controlled Republicans. Will they continue to hold our nation hostage by demanding more tax cuts for the very wealthy, with absolutely no compromise allowed? Or, will they put our nation first and begin to represent all Americans, not just the extremist fringe?

If the Republican Party continues to embrace the “new and improved brand” imposed by Karl Rove and Grover Norquist (two real life “Lead from Behind” dictators), their Party, and our nation, will continue to suffer.

Election Day 2012

It’s finally Election Day. I spent last night reviewing the various largely unknown candidates running for “chief dog catcher,” or some other such “vitally important” elected position.

I also took the time to call a few “friends” and relatives who I know from earlier conversations plan to vote for the “other guys.” In the spirit of Fox News, I encouraged them to keep an open mind, think hard about all the messages they’d heard, and make sure that they get to the polls early on Wednesday morning to make sure that their voice is heard.

The news, and the accompanying political ads, presented a real contrast this morning. In New Jersey, every effort was being made to ensure that everyone who wants to vote is allowed to vote, despite their being left homeless by Hurricane Sandy. Meanwhile, in Minnesota, voters are being asked to make it significantly more difficult – and more expensive – for some people to vote.

Like the Marriage Amendment, the photo-ID amendment was designed to drive loyal Republicans to the polls. Neither should have been placed on the ballot, but after promising a “laser focus” on jobs and the economy, the amendments were the only things the Republicans were able to produce.

Yet, it’s hard to deny that the two proposed Constitutional Amendments have produced jobs – even if the jobs went mainly to highly paid out-of-state “consultants,” hired to make sure that Minnesotan’s vote “Yes” on the Amendments.  Sadly, those jobs will end as soon as the polls close. However, should the amendments pass, more jobs will be “created” --- for attorneys questioning the constitutionality of the amendments, and those hired to “defend” them. It’s unknown whether those jobs will be awarded to Minnesota attorneys, or if they’ll also go to highly paid out-of-state attorneys. Either way, those “jobs” will also be temporary.

As has been the case for nearly all previous laws which have attempted to restrict the rights of Americans, the latest attempts to write religious doctrine or political ideology into law will ultimately fail. Such laws have always ended up being repealed or struck down by the courts.

This cycle, I voted a straight Democratic ticket.

Once the Republican Party returns to its roots of supporting our nation’s Constitution, and its guarantee of freedom and equality for all, will I once again offer serious consideration to Republican candidates.

Our nation has been at its best when it stands up for all its citizens. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has decided to bet against our Constitution and against the American people. They’re flat out wrong to do so.

No matter what the outcome of today’s election, I have confidence that our nation will survive. Despite the continued efforts by Republicans to weaken our nation by attempting to include narrow religious teachings - or a failed political ideology - in our nation’s laws; our nation has, and will continue to, survive.

I do know that our nation’s path to fully realize the promise of freedom and equality enshrined in our Constitution has been long and hard. Numerous groups – blacks, women, couples of different religions, interracial couples, and immigrants, to name a few - have suffered unconstitutional discrimination along the way. Yet, eventually, enlightened lawmakers, or the courts, have stepped in to repeal or overturn discriminatory laws.

As long as our Constitution remains strong, our nation can be strong. If, however, Republicans, and the narrow special interest groups they use for funding purposes, are allowed to prevail; and, if our Constitution is weakened by inclusion of antiquated religious doctrine, or a narrow political ideology, our nation is doomed to fail.

Will our children and grandchildren be better off if we promote discrimination based on ancient religious teachings, or a momentarily “popular” political ideology, to weaken our nation’s Constitution? No, I think not. Interpretations of religious teachings continue to evolve, as do political ideology “strategies” designed to achieve short term gains for a specific political party. I want my children and grandchildren to grow up and thrive in a nation which allows all citizens to reach their highest potential – not just the very wealthy and huge corporations.

That’s why I voted Democratic today. It wasn’t because the Democratic Party is perfect – far from it – but rather because they currently offer the best platform for the continued success of a nation founded on the ideals of freedom and equality.

$5 Million Offer - Deadline Extended

Good news, reality TV fans. The recent Hurricane disrupted Donald Trump’s self promotion campaign. Mainstream media apparently found Hurricane Sandy to be much more newsworthy than New York’s resident windbag.

So, Mr. Trump reacted as only his extraordinary ego could; He announced that he was extending his five million dollar offer to President Obama for one more day. The offer had been set to expire at 5 PM on Wednesday.

Reality TV star, Ms. Honey Boo Boo, who is currently locked in a bitter ratings battle with Donald Trump, was quick to react to Mr. Trump’s latest attempt at self aggrandizement. She held a press conference where she announced that she would not offer Mitt Romney a similar extension to collect on her ten million dollar offer to him.

She explained, “Like most loudmouthed insecure businessmen today, Donny Trump doesn’t like uncertainty. And, he doesn’t like losing. The only reason he offered President Obama five million dollars for documents proving that he was born in Kenya, was that the offer provided some much needed publicity for Donny’s fading career. Donny knew he wouldn’t have to pay out. He knew that President Obama would never fabricate documents just to take Donny’s money.”

“On the other hand, my offer of ten million dollars for Mitt Romney to release at least ten years of tax returns by 5 PM Wednesday is quite legitimate. My money is at risk, as the documents I’m seeking actually exist. I believe that the American public should be able to see Governor Romney’s tax returns. We know he has a bad habit of pandering to one group after another while trying to get elected. How can he expect us to put our faith in him if he’s unwilling to be honest with us? Allowing us to see his tax returns would be a step in the right direction.

Under questioning by reporters, Ms. Honey Boo Boo did admit that she does not expect to pay anything to Governor Romney. “Once a wealthy, pompous, businessman, such as Mr. Romney makes a decision – in this case a decision to not to release his tax returns – he’ll stick with it, no matter what it costs. Changing his mind, and admitting he was wrong, is viewed to be a sign of weakness. So, I really don’t expect Mr. Romney to release his tax returns.”

She further admitted that she hedged her risk through a ten million dollar wager with her manager. Her manager believes that Governor Romney has declined to release his tax returns because there’s something really embarrassing in them. “My manager believes that Mitt Romney mistakenly invested in a chain of ‘One Child Left Behind’ clinics in China, thinking that they were somehow related to President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ initiative. Only later did he discover that the clinics provided abortion services to support China’s ‘one family, one child’ rule.”

“I bet my manager that no such damaging evidence would be found in Mr. Romney’s tax returns. I figure that a smart, secretive, businessman such as Mr. Romney would never leave such embarrassing direct evidence visible in his returns. He would surely have created an offshore shell company to hold such investments for him, allowing him to “launder” the money he received through it.”

“I don’t expect Mitt Romney to release his tax returns. And, even if he does, my wager with my manager should cover me. But, if not, I’ll pay off both bets and write off the $20 million cost as a ‘promotional expense.’”

“Either way, it should provide a major boost to my ratings. Take that, Donny Trump.”

Running to Forget (the Bush Administation)

I really enjoy the visual image presented in the “Running to Forget” ad that the misnamed “Americans for Job Security” has been has been running. 

 What’s not to like about an image of a young, attractive, “mom” in a $200 jogging suit, jogging down a tree-lined suburban street, while pushing “her child” in a $500 jogging stroller?

The voice-over message, however, is quite unsettling. The voice states:

“I run to forget. Forget about my problems. Forget that my husband’s been laid off twice in the last four years. Forget the bad economy. I voted for Obama, but Hope and Change was just a slogan. Obama promised to turn the economy around in three years. But, spending and debt have exploded. Now we’re facing another recession. The future is getting worse under Obama.”

“Americans for Job Security is responsible for the contents of this Message.”

I have no idea how many “takes” were required to “film” the commercial, but the baby hired to play the role of the woman’s “child” appears to be very uncomfortable in the "establishing shot." It appears that she was attempting to slide out of the stroller to get away. 

Who can blame the baby? She's been placed in a jogging stroller, sent hurtling down a street she’s never seen before, being pushed by some unknown abductor, with her real mommy nowhere in site. She has every right to be terrified.

Now, I don’t blame the woman who was hired to play the “jogging mom.” She had her own acting to do. Her view of the baby was obstructed, and she had no idea the baby was terrified. The production crew, however, should have stepped in to comfort and protect the child. But, I suppose they thought a “terrified child” made for a better ad.

If the baby had heard the voice-over message, and was able to understand it, I suspect she would have been even more terrified.

After all, in just four years of “running to forget,” her “mommy” had already forgotten about the Bush administration which helped push our nation’s slide into the Great Recession. She’d forgotten how President Bush started two expensive wars, while, for the first time in our nation’s history, giving huge tax cuts to the very wealthy.

Had the child heard the message, she might have been very concerned about what would happen to her when she turns four. Will her “mommy” forget about her, too?

Yet, the ad hits a number of Republican "talking points." It implies that the child is a product of a “traditional” one-man, one-woman, family unit. It dismisses “Hope and Change” as just a slogan. It reminds us that President Obama promised “to turn the economy around in three years.” And, it reminds us that “Spending and Debt have exploded.”

Personally, I liked President Obama’s “Hope and Change” campaign slogan. It showed that he was looking forward with optimism for our nation’s future, after a truly depressing Bush administration. I think President Obama has done a remarkable job, despite being obstructed at every turn by a Republican Congress more intent on pushing Grover Norquist’s agenda, than an agenda for recovery, such as the one which President Obama laid out.

President Obama set a challenging goal of turning the economy around in his first term. And, he has done a remarkable job of stabilizing a nation which had been hurtling uncontrollably toward total financial collapse. He managed – with absolutely no help from a Republican Congress – to pull our nation out of its tailspin. He deserves our thanks for what has been accomplished, rather than the Republican scorn for failing to reach the challenging goal he set.

If it had been up to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, our nation (and GM), would have been allowed to go bankrupt, eliminating all those pesky middle class jobs and the future economic security of those workers. Going bankrupt would have allowed good private companies, such as Bain Capital, to swoop in and buy up our nation’s assets for pennies on the dollar. Imagine the profits to be made by “flipping” our country and selling it – in pieces – to the highest bidders. If selling their PC business to the Chinese was good for IBM, imagine how good it would be for Bain to sell off our nuclear technology to the Chinese also.   

But, seriously, one can only wonder how far our nation might have come in the last four years, if only Republicans had supported our nation’s President during a time of war, rather than following Grover Norquist’s plan to destroy the United States. It’s no wonder Michele Bachmann suspected some in Congress were unpatriotic.

Yes. Spending and debt have exploded. And, despite the denial of Republicans – amplified by Fox News, their 24x7 propaganda channel - this started under President Bush. It turns out that President Bush’s two expensive wars, while also giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy, was not a good way to reduce spending and hold down debt.

Democrats have long been accused of being the “tax and spend” party, as if that was a bad idea. Now that we’ve seen the Republican trickle-down approach, combined with their more traditional “cut taxes, spend and borrow” approach (which leaves the debt for future generations), which seems to be the more honest approach to you?

I can understand the statement that “the future is getting worse under Obama.” From the standpoint of the wealthy businessmen who produced this ad, it's very true. The future does look worse, much worse – for them, not for our nation - under President Obama. After all, in the wake of the Wall Street scandal which pushed our nation to the brink of financial collapse, President Obama was able to secure much needed regulatory reforms to limit the possibility that Wall Street could do it once again. The future has been getting worse - for those who choose fraud over fair competition.

American’s love to compete and are quite capable of competing with anyone, given a level playing field. Unfortunately, large Corporations and the very wealthy have convinced the Republican Party to tilt the “playing field” in their favor, at the expense of our nation as a whole. President Obama, and the Democratic Party, have started the process of reversing this trend. They want to level the playing field to allow all Americans – not just large corporations and the very wealthy – to compete and succeed. And, if history is an indication, our nation will be much stronger as a result.

Living in a strong, free, nation – one which treats all its citizens fairly and equally – is enough to put a smile on every child’s face.

DISCLAIMER: Jogging is a form of exercise enjoyed by many. The idea, like the other lies told by the misnamed “Americans for Job Security” organization, that jogging somehow causes selective memory loss is FALSE. It’s false, even if Fox News devoted three days of breathless coverage to promote the false claim - including airing interviews with numerous highly paid corporate doctors, who swore that it’s true (Besides, Obamacare would make anyone suffering from selective memory loss stand in endless lines just to get treatment for it. Private health insurance companies will not make patients stand in long lines. They will deny coverage over the phone.). Before starting any exercise program, consult your physician to determine the suitability of the program. As long as your physician is not owned by corporate America, they should be able to honestly evaluate your health and recommend an appropriate exercise routine.

Faulty Logic = Bad Math

In his ad, Congressman John Kline appears in an otherwise empty Metrodome, looks into the camera and tells us that “America’s national debt stands at 16 trillion dollars. It’s the equivalent to selling every seat in the Metrodome, every single day, for nine thousand years.”

It's unknown if Congressman Kline actually paid to rent those empty seats, or if he "borrowed" the Metrodome as a "Congressional Perk."

The announcer in Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s ad tells us that “We all owe it, our portion of the national debt. Each of us owes over fifty thousand dollars to pay it off.” Congresswoman Bachmann then tells us, “I approve this message.”

It's not known if the baby's acting fee will be enough to pay their "debt," or if Congresswoman Bachmann invoked her "Congressional discount" to prevent the baby from joining the annoying middle class.

And, in his ad, Congressman Erik Paulsen, “the Math Guy,” tells us: “The national debt is up ten trillion dollars in 10 years. That’s fifty thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child. That’s unacceptable.”

It's unknown if his daughters were allowed to keep their acting fees for appearing in his ad, or if Congressman Paulsen demanded that they "donate" the funds to his campaign so that they don't learn to demand more "hand-outs" in the future.

These ads continue to drive home the message that the Republican Party has been repeating for almost four years: The deficit is our nation’s biggest problem. The hole President Obama – and all Democrats since the beginning of time - dug in creating it will cost each one of us, our children, and our grandchildren (not to mention their children and their grandchildren) more than $50,000 to pay off. 

(I have no idea why Congressman Paulsen went “off-message” to acknowledge that, perhaps, six years of the deficit might have actually originated during the Bush administration. The official Republican “fantasy” is that the entire budget deficit is the result of President Obama’s "failed policies" – which, for the most part, Republicans blocked him from implementing.)

Anyway, the Republican solution to our “deficit problem” is as it’s been for the last decade or so - take an axe to government programs, and use the money "saved" to provide more tax cuts for the very wealthy. After all, this worked so well during the Bush administration, when Dick Cheney assured us that "deficits don’t matter.”

But, I digress.

The above ads, and the recurring fantasy that “trickle-down economics” is somehow good for our nation, got me thinking. I know that “trickle-down economics” has been very good for the very wealthy, while being devastating for the middle-class and those less fortunate. But, how much does "trickle-down economics" really cost those who the Republican Party refuse to represent? Our nation’s deficit is just one cost. What other costs do Americans of modest means face?

Using the same faulty logic and flawed math demonstrated by Republican Representatives Kline, Bachmann, and Paulsen in their ads, I decided to find out. 

I decided to look at the cost of soda. Like other items in my shopping cart, the cost of soda has continued to rise. So, I looked up the total compensation for all named executives of the Coca-Cola Company (Coke) and PepsiCo (Pepsi).

According to their 2012 proxy statements, the named executives of the Coca-Cola Company (5 of them) received total compensation of $60,437,264 in 2011. The named executives of PepsiCo (6 of them) received total compensation of $63,441,406 in 2011. That’s a total of $123,878,670 for one year, for 11 executives at just two companies.

How that money is supposed to trickle-down into the pockets of “working class” Americans has never been clear to me.

But, using the same faulty logic, and the same bad math, as the three Republican Representatives, I did a bit of my own math. What I found was quite startling:

 

That’s right, at a consumption rate of one two-liter bottle per day, every day, for about 169,000 years, my family might come close to paying the total compensation for 11 top executives, at just two companies, for just one year.

Further, did your compensation go up during the Great Recession? At many large corporations, it sure did -- at least for their Chief Executive Officers.

At Coca-Cola, the CEO received $18,813,013 in 2009, $24,782,017 in 2010, and $29,115,573 in 2011, for a total of $72,710,603 in just three years. At PepsiCo, the CEO received $15,768,350 in 2009, $16,175,381 in 2010, and $17,116,089 in 2011, for a total of $49,059,820 in just three years. I don't know how many employees - if any - were laid off to justify such rewards.

Just like the faulty logic, and "voodoo math," used in promoting trickle-down economics, the faulty logic used in the three ads referenced above leads them to the claim that "every man, woman, and child in America owes over $50,000 to pay off our national debt." Hogwash. It’s our nation’s debt. Our nation is responsible for paying it off. How it chooses to pay is still to be determined. However, if the Republican Party has its way, 98% of the population will have to pay more, so that the favored 2% will be able to pay less.

Similarly, the “logic” used to show how many bottles of soda my family would have to buy to pay for one year of top executive compensation is equally flawed. The respective companies are responsible for compensating their executives, not my family.

In short, no matter how many times a politician, or a news corporation - especially Fox News - presents a “simple common sense solution” (such as Congressman Paulsen’s, “Just spend less”) to a complex issue, you’re probably being lied to. 

In a complex world, there’s no such thing as a "simple solution." No single issue stands alone. Everything is intertwined with something else. Everything has a cost. For each solution, there will be "winners" and "losers." And, just as in our personal lives, to be successful, our nation's leaders must consider numerous trade-offs involved in every decision they make. They should not be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities by signing away their minds to any special interest group. No matter how powerful people such as Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, or the Hunt Brothers might seem, selling out our nation to serve them is not a good idea.

Modern-day Republicans have decided to tip the scales in favor of the very wealthy. And, despite the pain already inflicted, their plan is to continue to do more of the same, no matter what it costs our nation.

Our economy and our nation’s fiscal health will only show significant improvement when a more normal,  balanced, approach is allowed to return.

I implore patriotic Republicans: Tear up the pledges, and start leading for a change. 

DISCLAIMER: I do not directly own any shares of either of the companies named, nor do I plan to acquire any shares in the foreseeable future. I suspect, however, that one of the mutual funds I have probably owns shares of both. Unlike the companies I directly invest in, I have not researched either the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo to make an informed decision regarding the appropriateness of either company for my investment portfolio. If I ever decide to do so, Executive Compensation will be just one of the many variables I will consider.