Worker Visas Have Been Okay So Far So Why Not Now?

When we needed more workers in high tech, Congress created a visa category (H-1B) to address that need. In fact, we now have 31(!) different categories of temporary visas for such and other purposes. We have ALWAYS used temporary visas for various work in the USA. So why is a temporary worker visa for such workers as those from Mexico not appropriate? Why are people getting so worked up over the notion of requiring non-resident immigrants from Mexico to carry such legal documentation? Everyone else who isn't a legal resident has to! In fact, police have the legal authority ask anyone for identification now after they've stopped them for whatever reason.

A temporary worker visa is a perfect solution to this problem but people are opposed to that too for some reason even though we've been using those for years and years already. For example, look up the H-1B worker visa description on the internet. This argument that Mexican workers are needed for jobs Americans won't or can't do has an EXACT corollary to the high tech worker need and there's no logical reason why the solution cannot be the same. It has worked before. In fact, it has become THE STANDARD way of dealing with non-resident immigrants.

Now Arizona has a law that will require non-resident immigrants to carry documents ... just like the federal government ALREADY requires! The federal government has been enforcing (although erratically!) this requirement for many, many years. So why is it unacceptable for Arizona to say, yes we agree and want to make that very SAME requirement enforceable at the local level too for more effective enforcement. The only thing different with the Arizona law is that they intend to enforce it rigorously. The only difference is that Arizona's law will be enforced by local law enforcement, not federal. The Arizona law is no more unconstitutional than the equivalent federal law.

Arguments against worker visas for immigrants are nonsense. It is constitutional and has been practiced for many years for all other categories of non-resident immigrants.

The fact of illegal immigrants finding a way to get here does not obligate US citizens to grant them amnesty and a permanent stay here. We have a moral obligation to consider all applications for residency and citizenship but we already have processes for that. Come here by one of the many legal means and you can stay. Come here illegally and all you're 'entitled' to is arrest and deportation or imprisonment for breaking our laws. We ARE a nation of laws aren't we? Or do we now prefer anarchy?

And They Call Us Stupid and Hypocritical!

From our local paper last week Friday (04/23/2010) in referring to conservatives, especially Tea Party types:

"What exactly are you complaining about? Almost everyone got a tax cut and most of the deficit belongs to George W. Bush anyway."

Can't help myself. Gotta comment ... again!

What President Obama and most democrats call Obama's "tax cut" was a TEMPORARY, ONE-TIME tax CREDIT. A one-time payment to Americans of $400 ($250 for retirees). We want a tax CUT ... a PERMANENT cut in tax RATES. We also want an accompanying spending cut so that the tax cut does not increase the debt. Neither Democrats nor Republicans reduced spending.

Also, people who keep pointing out President Obama's "tax cut" to us Tea Party types as if WE are the ones not paying attention are themselves the ones not paying attention or they'd understand that we are not just upset with taxes at the federal level. We're upset with taxes, spending and debt at ALL levels of government.

Regarding who's responsible for our national debt, for those who are interested in actual facts, the deficit is NOT mostly Bush's. Congress has 100% of the constitutional authority AND responsibility to increase/decrease spending and taxes. THEY (not the president ... read your constitution please!) are responsible for any debt or surplus. Democrats were in total control of both houses of Congress for two of Bush's eight years. During those 2 years they increased our debt just as much as Republicans did during Bush's first six years in office. So Democrats bear equal responsibility for the "Bush debt" and they're TOTALLY responsible for the mind-blowing debt increase since Obama took office. The fact is that, in only three years(!), Democrats have increased the debt more than ALL PREVIOUS CONGRESSES IN OUR HISTORY COMBINED ... including Bush!

Of the debt created in the past ten years here's the scorecard:
Republicans: $2.5 Trillion
Democrats: 4.2 Trillion (and increasing more rapidly than ever)

Democrats are equally responsible for the Bush years debt and have increased it greatly since then. They have NOT, in fact, given us a tax cut nor spending cut. Tea Party folks are taking the time to understand the constitution and its delegation of authority and responsibility. Based on actual facts, if you're interested, we're neither ignorant of the facts (or constitution) nor hypocritical.

Jobless Recovery Hypocrisy

We've been hearing from the president and legislative democrats for several months now that, yes, this is a 'jobless recovery'. Yes, jobs aren't picking up fast enough but at least it's a recovery. They say that a jobless recovery is a good thing. I suppose that does sound good but do you remember how democrats railed against the economic recovery after Bush's tax cuts? They said that was a 'jobless recovery' too ... yes there's a recovery going on but the jobs aren't picking up fast enough.

So, to these democrats, a "jobless recovery" was a really bad thing during the Bush years but the exact same nature of 'recovery' is acceptable when democrats are in charge. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

A bad thing is unacceptable when the other guy is in charge but the same bad thing is acceptable when we're in charge. Americans are beginning to understand how both parties routinely practice hypocrisy. We crave more honesty, openness, and clarity. To all our elected representatives: have you no self-respect or respect for us? Integrity matters! Practice it or please find another line of work.

Please, Please Listen Up: Just Because You Call It A Tax Cut Doesn't Mean Conservatives Like It!!

President Obama, Democrats in general and letters to newspaper editors are calling Tea Party folks hypocrites and stupid for making an issue out of wanting tax cuts when Obama, as he claimed on tax day, says he gave us exactly that ... a $173B tax cut immediately after taking office. He said, "You would think they'd be saying thank you". And he asks, 'So what do they want'?

What we want, President Obama, is a REAL tax cut and accompanying spending reduction. That $173B Economic Stimulus (delivered in the mail to taxpayers) was, in fact, not a tax cut but, rather, a tax credit. It was temporary and does so little to resolve our over-taxed condition it isn't significant as a 'tax cut'.

The other bad thing about President Obama's tax credit was that it added to the debt. Yes, we conservatives in general, Tea Party folks especially, want tax cuts but we also want spending cuts so the tax cuts don't increase the debt. That is where Bush and congressional Republicans let us down too ... they delivered a real tax cut, yes, but they increased spending (and the debt!) which is a big reason why we're upset with them too. Yes, we're upset with BOTH party's leadership, not just Obama!

Where's A Good Cowboy When We Need One?

Saw an article wondering who does all the domestic/international defense, inventing, etc when (not if!) we become Europeanized (where 50% of GDP goes to welfare, leaving not enough for actually inventing stuff and for other's defense let alone one's own). (Europeans have PROVED you can have welfare or an adequate military but not both!) Now we're 'un-' growing a spine under the 'leadership' of these people.

This utopian state of existence that Obama thinks he can create for the whole world is the most irrational thing I've ever heard from a nation's leadership, perhaps from any human ... ever. It ignores both ALL of history and simple human psychology. Socialists have done stuff like this throughout history and it has invariably led to nations' internal troubles (too much debt, spending, taxes, dependence on government) and wars (inability to adequately defend one's self invites bullies to do harm to you and your friends). This president is doing much the same and expecting different results. Gads!

The important truth is, we could use a few cowboys in leadership. The world will still function like the 'old West', given a chance. We can choose to become spineless and allow the lawless to have their way or we can encourage and welcome men of moral courage and strength to do what needs to be done. Good guys vs bad guys. It's the way things are. Wanting everyone else to play fair just because you do doesn't mean they will. In fact, history proves(!) they won't.

Haven't these guys EVER been on a playground where bullies cause problems? Haven't they ever experienced some sociopathic adolescent walking up to them and kicking them in the groin just for the fun of it? Obviously not because they don't understand bullies happen and weakness is an invitation to them to at least experiment on harming you just to see if they can get away with it. (And when they do, it begs even worse treatment! DUH!) Moral strength (exercised!) and courage beget a measure of both voluntary and imposed civility sufficient to allow people to live decent lives. I worry about where this president is leading us.

God Bless Our Country. We need you more than ever!

Freedom Through Strength

So, President Obama thinks taking the teeth out of our 'deterrent' strategy is a good thing. We don't want our enemies to fear us, right? We want them to like us enough to play fair and dumbing down our nuclear and other strategies achieves that, right?

Well, here's what one of the greatest threats of our age has to say about that:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36212348/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Hmmmm. Gives one pause, eh?

By the way, President Obama and his administration made a huge deal out of his recent nuclear warhead reduction announcement as a terrific accomplishment. Obama said he's reducing the number of warheads from some 2,500 today to 1,500 which sounds good, right? Problem is Bush left office with us already on track to reduce them to 1,700 so in reality Obama has only increased the reduction by 200. Some accomplishment!

Here are the FACTS if you're interested in them (versus the Koolaid from The Media and the administration):

Jan 3, 1993: US and Russia both have about 10,000 warheads. Today Bush Sr (after working on this throughout his time in office) and Yeltsin signed START II in which they agreed to reduce these levels by 3,000 to 3,500 each. In addition, sea-based weapons were to be cut to 1,750 each and ALL land-based multiple-warhead missiles were to be eliminated. It all meant that by 2003 ¾ of all nuclear warheads possessed by both sides would be destroyed.

May 24, 2002: Putin and Bush Jr signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty by which they agreed to cut the nuclear warheads of each side from levels of between 6,000 and 7,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by 2012. By the time Bush Jr left office this plan was on track toward the goal of 1,700 by 2012, having reduced the stockpiles by half so far during his time in office.

April 5, 2010: Under the Bush Jr agreement, the number of warheads has now been reduced to approximately 2,500 by each country and is still on track toward Bush Jr’s goal of 1,700 by 2012. Today Obama announced that he’s reducing the stockpile from that current 2,500 to 1,500 by 2012 which is only 200 less than Bush Jr had agreed to and was on track to accomplish.

While Obama loudly touts this ‘big’ accomplishment in warhead levels, it’s interesting to put his further reduction of 200 warheads in true perspective relative to what Bush Sr and Bush Jr actually accomplished ... from 10,000 to 2,500 and on track to 1,700 by 2012. Hmmmm.

Question, based on actual facts: which party's presidents have done the best job of ridding us of nuclear weapons (by a ratio of 8,300 to 200)?

What About Violence Against Our Constitutional Rights!

I'm among the first to denounce any threats of violence against our elected representatives but what these guys need to understand is that defacto disenfranchisement of half of Americans (by blocking our reps out of the process on legislation that has great impacts on us) is nothing less than violence against our rights as citizens.

I don't think they understand how it feels to have one's rights to representation denied to this extent. They're worried about the disenfranchised illegal alien. Well, we have no more voice in our government right now than those illegal aliens and these guys could care less! Where's the 'justice' that they proudly promote in that?

Health Care Mandates Justified By The Commerce Clause ... HUH?

Two rather significant problems with Dems repeated claims that the Constitution's Commerce Clause gives them the authority to force citizens to comply with these new health care requirements:

1. ANY reading of what the founders intended that clause to cover proves the Democrats are incorrect in applying it the way they are. It is unconstitutional on that basis.
2. The Commerce Clause was created to 'make regular' interstate commerce. Problem is there is NO interstate commerce involved in the way health insurance companies operate. Congress long ago CREATED LAWS PREVENTING(!) insurance companies from competing across state lines. Therefore, the insurance industry is prevented from interstate commerce BY LAW! If they MAY NOT compete across state lines, then the Commerce Clause CANNOT POSSIBLY APPLY! It is unconstitutional on this basis also.

In addition, what they're requiring states to do via this health care bill is a complete violation of states rights as established by the constitution (again, via ANY reading of the founders' intentions). That is so clear to states that at least 38(!) states' attorney's general are prepared to sue Congress over this. 4 states' AG's said they were going to file suit immediately after Obama signs it. The rest will either join the suit or decide what to do based on the results of that.

By the way, our own US representative, Peter DeFazio, when asked in a town hall meeting what authority they have to do this, said their authority for this health care bill is the General Welfare Clause. So, not only can't they get their stories straight, but his claim is also incorrect. This health care reform is NOT covered under the General Welfare Clause either by ANY interpretation of the founders' written intentions. In fact, they made a point of excluding such application in multiple writings.

The ACTUAL constitution means nothing to these guys. They are completely out of control.

By the way, NO major legislation, especially big permanent social legislation, in our history has been rammed through by one party at the total exclusion of participation in its creation by the other and complete lack of yes votes. Social Security and Medicare were also controversial Democratic products but they involved Republicans. Those bills passed with bipartisan involvement, debate, support, and voting. The only thing bipartisan about this one is opposition to it (with some 35 or so Dems ... ie, 14%!!! ... voting against it).

Reality Check: Eliminating Pre-Existing Conditions Is Not Free

Let's be clear at the outset. I favor restricting insurance companies' ability to deny coverage based on existing bad health conditions. Note I said 'restricting'.

The problem insurance companies have (which is also our problem) is lots of people don't purchase health insurance so they'll have more money for other stuff. Then, when they get sick, they want to buy insurance to cover what they have so they don't have to pay so much for the care they need. What they're doing, of course, is forcing/expecting the rest of the insured pool of people to subsidize their care but they won't contribute to the pool to help others. What they want (ie, feel entitled to!) for themselves they're unwilling to do for others.

The whole point of 'group insurance', whether it be for health, death/dismemberment or other (there are hundreds of different forms of group insurance), is to protect everyone in the pool against some catastrophic event. We all pay a little so no one has to endure significant hardship due to one of life's vagaries. It's the humane thing to do.

When we were a more rural/agricultural society, it's how people lived because life, in general. was challenging if not usually hard. But it was a good kind of 'hard' life. It had its rewards. It was satisfying. Neighbor helping neighbor was often a matter of survival ... personally and for one's neighbors. Strongly knitted and supportive communities survived ... most thrived, in spite of extraordinary hardships. Group insurance is rooted in that kind of thinking/attitude and is successful because many more people still think that way than not.

Problem now is the increasing percentage of people who feel entitled to the good life or to 'stuff' regardless the impact on others. An increasing percentage of people in America have an increasing sense of entitlement and a decreasing sense of responsibility to be a good neighbor and contributor to the common good. What far too many people don't seem to understand is that to have the kind of good life that's truly satisfying, one needs to contribute to the greater good and work hard to 'make' a good life for one's self.

If you want more 'stuff' or a 'more comfortable life', you need to do whatever it takes to become qualified for higher-paying work. So that you can not only take care of yourself and your family but so you can contribute to the good of the community. We should all work to be a net contributor to society, not a net drag on it. It doesn't always work out well but that should be our goal. Otherwise, when the percentage of selfish individuals reaches a certain point, everyone loses including the selfish ones.

So, back to the Pre-Existing Conditions challenge. If we eliminate insurance companies' ability to use that, those of us who do have insurance will pay A LOT MORE IN PREMIUMS. Insurance companies won't exist if they don't make a profit, right? What WILL happen if we eliminate their ability to disallow coverage of people who come into it with the condition they want to get covered? The SIMPLE answer is it will cost them A LOT MORE MONEY because people will tend not to buy insurance until they're sick so they'll be a huge net consumer of the available health care dollars. Eliminating pre-existing conditions WILL cost the insurance companies a lot more money so what will they do? Maybe increase everyone's premiums? Well, duh!!!

The 'simple' solution is to require everyone to have insurance. Then we could eliminate insurance companies' use of pre-existing conditions. People wouldn't come into insurance pools only when they're sick. We cannot have it both ways. If people aren't required to buy insurance AND we eliminate pre-existing condition clauses our insurance rates WILL GO UP, probably a lot.

I prefer another solution because I don't think requiring Americans to buy a particular product is constitutional. It's at least inconsistent with constitutional principles and principles that make a Republic possible. What I'd do is restrict (not eliminate) the use of pre-existing conditions and to apply conditions on people who start insurance for the purpose of treating an existing condition. They should be required to remain in the pool long after they've gottent the care they seek and they should pay an above average premium until some time after they're cured. People who have insurance while healthy should receive a discount for a healthy lifestyle. Probably several other things make sense to do but you probably get my point.

Bankrupt USA Possible? Our Arrogance And Irrational Economic Policies Make It Nearly Certain.

Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy and several other EU countries are not far behind. Three big problems there. First, their national debt is around 10% of the GDP. Also, approximately 10% of their citizens work for the government. And total cost to employers of unionized employees has grown dramatically.

Our national debt ratio in America is also around 10%. 8% of Americans worked in government in 2007. Since government employment has grown dramatically in the past two years, it's safe to say it's approaching 9% in America. Total cost of unionized employees has grown dramatically over the past 20 years. To assess whether the cost of unionized employees is causing economic problems, check which employers and states are in financial trouble and why.

The reason a large percentage of government workers is a problem for any economy is that government doesn't create wealth. It ONLY consumes wealth. The larger government becomes, the less economic resources are available to grow or sustain an economy. That black hole like sucking sound you hear is the health of our economy being sucked right into oblivion.

Financial commitments to unions in America (that the average American can't even dream of having) have put two of our biggest companies, GM and Chrysler, as well as many, many others in trouble. In fact, without major concessions by unions last year those auto companies would likely have folded. Several state governments are in danger of various defaults or even bankruptcy, the worst example being California with a mind-boggling $540 Billion of debt. Most of their financial burdens are financial concessions and obligations to unions that are completely unsustainable and totally irrational in retrospect.

America is in nearly as bad a condition financially and economically as several other countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy. Think it can't happen here? Wake up! It CAN! Our arrogance thinking it can't happen here will prevent us from doing what we need to do in order to prevent it. If we don't SOON shrink all governments by a large amount, reverse irrational surrender to union demands and reverse the trend toward astronomical debt our economy can and WILL collapse.