Chewing the Cud (Posts about Political)

Letter to Representative Goodlatte Concerning the Commerce Clause

James Aimonetti — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:15:44 GMT

A letter to Congressman Goodlatte, concerning the invasive way the Commerce Clause is invoked to pry into the private lives of Americans.

Congressman Goodlatte, I would like to bring to your attention the cases of Wickard v Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn ) and Gonzales v Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), wherein the Supreme Court found "that Congress can regulate purely INTRASTATE activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity" (emphasis mine). Congress has seemingly confused economics with commerce. Setting prices is not Congress' job. Setting quotas, to be met or not exceeded, is not Congress' job. Telling an American what they can and cannot produce, and in what quantities, for personal use, is not the job of Congress! Taking the Filburn case further, one can see it being applied to any number of self-sufficiency initiatives one may follow, like home gardening or personal solar/wind/hydro power. As we can see with HR 875 and S 425, regulating home gardening is already being proposed. I am glad to see that no Republicans are supporting it, but 41 Democrats are (HR 875, that is). As home power generation technology becomes more affordable and effective at displacing power drawn off the grid, how long until power companies join together to have Congress regulate how much energy a person can generate locally? Congressman, this trend worries me as I'm hoping it worries you. We need strongly worded legislation that reigns in Congress' ability to use the Commerce Clause as carte blanche to stick it's nose in the economy. Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the Several States, NOT in the private lives of Americans, no matter how much Congress "thinks" it may affect the national economy. Please respond by letting me know how you are personally going to reign in Congress' power (something any true Republican would actually do, even though it reigns in their own "power"). I would like to work with you on drafting this legislation so that it protects the individual's ability to take care of themselves and their families without Congress influencing those decisions. Sincerely, James Aimonetti

Letter to Rep. Goodlatte Concerning Social Security

James Aimonetti — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:23:45 GMT

This is the letter I sent our Representative concerning Social Security. I only write to get insincere, pandering, and uninspired form letters in the mail. I like mail.

Rep. Goodlatte, It is time to allow younger Americans to opt out of Social Security. I need that 12.4 percent of my income more than the Federal government. With the latest report from the Trustees Report, Social Security will be insolvent by 2016, perhaps sooner if economic conditions do not improve. In seven years, I will be in my mid-30's; hardly the age to begin drawing on it. I object to being forced into Social Security for many reasons: 1. I disagree with the income tax in general. My labor being traded for fiat currency is not income. Having to work four to six months just to pay taxes makes me a slave, or indentured servant at best, to the Federal Government, and I am pretty sure we have an amendment that specifically touches on that subject.

The tax revenues have been used to cover the deficits in the rest

of the government's budgets, and the only way to make the system sustainable is to give the participants a negative rate of return on their money. If I contribute $100,000 over my career to Social Security, I lose in at least two ways. First, inflation steals the "value" of the fiat currency. We could discuss at length the lack of real value (gold- and silver-backed currencies), but for now, even the fiat currency will lose value over the next 50 years (assuming the dollar doesn't implode). Second, if I do not live long enough to use the $100,000 I put in, I have lost some percentage of that money. I would rather have it now to invest as I see fit, rather than hope I live long enough to spend the money I earn! There are those much smarter than me that have realized the Ponzi nature of the Social Security scam. What is the difference between Social Security and Bernie Madoff? Governmental versus private scams are still scams and yet Madoff is going to jail and the administrators of Social Security are not. Bob, it is time I had a way to get out of Social Security. Let me be a responsible adult and care for my family's financial security. I have no confidence in the Federal Government's abilities to administer social programs, and I despise being forced into under force or threat of force from the IRS. By the way, taking of property by force or threat of force is theft, illegal by law, and yet the Federal Government is allowed to do exactly that on many occasions. So, I implore you, fight the good fight and give me and my peers the ability to leave the Ponzi scheme having only lost a small portion of my lifetime wages. Eagerly looking forward to a form letter or email telling me you'll look into it without committing to anything useful! Sincerely, James Aimonetti PS - For your reference, in case you or your minions want to learn about the mess that is Social Security, read http://mises.org/story/3469.

The Argument For Guns

James Aimonetti — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:38:34 GMT

I am not a gun-toting fellow by any means. Typically I have waffled between whether to ban some guns or leave them all available to private citizens. I know it is a slippery slope when talking bans and I don't trust future legislators to not take advantage of a current legislator's good intentions in limiting a subsection of firearms. That said, I think it is always good to refresh your position with a well-articulated essay in support of your thoughts. And while I probably will not be toting any machine guns or bazookas, I think a handgun and some training might be time and money well spent. We'll see. Until then, here's the post that I feel articulates a good reason for the 2nd Amendment to be un-abridged by any gun laws:

The Gun is Civilization Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Satire or Reality?

James Aimonetti — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:06:03 GMT

(Not mine, but can't find original source either) For Immediate Release Washington, DC - President Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act. AWNAA is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition. 'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.' In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S employer of Persons of Inability. Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%). Under The Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance. Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires. Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?' 'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember 'rightey tightey, lefty loosey.' 'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.

Good government?

James Aimonetti — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:48:17 GMT

Sometime in the past, perhaps a month ago, I was involved in a discussion of what, if anything, the government did that was beneficial for the common man and was not an explicitly delegated power derived from the Constitution. Then today, there was a discussion on reddit concerning that very question, and I found the comments to be enlightening. The parent-est thread of the conversation can be found here. First, the challenge was made to name government services that make government a "dangerous good" rather than a "necessary evil". The list initially created included:

Rural electrification/Tennessee Valley Authority

DARPA (the Internet?)

NASA

The National Weather Service

US Geological Survey

Pell grants

Those are some pretty solid programs, eh? And yet…

Rural electrification/Tennessee Valley Authority Lots of rural ares are not under TVA or other rural electrification plans. My Grandpa remembered his dad paying $700 (in 1930's money) to a nearby utility to run power to their farm. Of course the farm was just outside of Minneapolis so there was a utility to pay. For that matter my house has power from a co-op formed because a bunch of farmers decided they wanted power and made it happen.

DARPA (the Internet?) There were other private networks. Remember fidonet? Any could have grown. Of course the government being behind DARPA with big money was a large factor, but something would have happened. Science fiction has been full of stories that assume a world (universe) wide network.

NASA The only one here that you can make any claim at all about doing something that we wouldn't have without them today. At what cost though? If we had spent the money NASA has got over the years on genetic research we could have dragons instead. Nobody has been to the moon in my lifetime (and I'm 34), at least with dragons I could go to the circus and see them.

The National Weather Service Most TV and radio stations already have their own weathermen. Without the NWS they might actually have to know something about weather, instead of looking good. Considering the "weathermen" in my area this would be an improvement

US Geological Survey There are lots of private maps.

Pell grants There are plenty of private scolarships.

Government has done some neat things. However most would have happened anyway. All come at the cost of some other neat thing.

Education vs Schooling

James Aimonetti — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:01:20 GMT

It is hard to question the value of public schools. The premise, a free education to enable children to lift themselves up and be productive members of society, is certainly hard to argue against. And yet, we see public schools failing, some quite miserably, to produce competent young adults. Solutions proposed, like "No Child Left Behind" are equally hard to argue against. How can a politician vote against such a proposition? And yet we have seen a good deal of backlash from teachers and administrators as to the decrease in quality learning that students have received. Despite all the "work" put into public education, public schools are not producing the intellectual citizens hoped for and desired. So we need to question deeper. I was given an article today that takes a deeper look at public education and provides some refreshing insight. The author, John Taylor Gatto, questions the premises of public education and finds that, not only are they ineffective, but designed to be so. Read with an open mind and see if the content jives with you. At the very least, we need to examine so many of the governmental institutions put in place in the last century that we take as necessary, and public education is certainly one of those institutions that will generally be disregarded in that discussion. The Federal Reserve, the IRS, Homeland Security, and more are easier targets because they have a negative impact on our society. Public education is generally perceived as a net positive for society, and thus tends to be exempt from discussion on its needed existence.

Obama's Wealth Redistribution In Action!

James Aimonetti — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:44:49 GMT

From a mailing list:

Today on my way to lunch, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read, Vote Obama; I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant, I noticed my server had on an "Obama 08" tie. Again I laughed as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence! When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone whom I deemed more in need — the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside, who, I decided, did not need the money as much as the homeless guy. The homeless guy was most grateful! At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was very grateful for the money although he did not earn it. And the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient deserved the money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. Or is it? Redistribution of someone else's wealth is a great idea — or just a fool's game?

It seems like there should be a market for all those Obama supporters to bind together into a group fund that then they can redistribute their wealth by choice, and not force others that don't agree with the method of redistribution. Oh wait, there are…they're called charities and non-profits. No need for the government there! If only…

Important Ideas

James Aimonetti — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:59:47 GMT

You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage, by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.

To whom are these attributed to? None other than Abraham Lincoln. Sad that after all these years, our politicians haven't learned these lessons, and our citizenry hasn't elected politicians that do get it.

Get rid of the Fed

James Aimonetti — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:44:43 GMT

Regarding the VP "Debate": Overall, Palin didn't suck. Biden was good. Neither was very impressive. I would have liked to have seen a third party VP candidate up there to actually talk substance. That said, why will no one acknowledge that the Federal Reserve is directly responsible for the financial meltdown? The monetary supply was increased by the Federal Reserve and loaned that increase to firms on Wall Street at low interest rates. There was no call from the market for an increase, there was no market influence on the interest rate. Other than Ben Bernanke, can anyone name someone else on the Federal Reserve board? Can anyone remember voting for Bernanke to replace Greenspan? So, we have a board with no tangible oversight determining the monetary supply and interest rates. With all this cheap money to be had, and with the nature of Wall Street to make money, it is only natural (good or bad is subjective) for the financial industry to take the money and do something with it. The cliche "kid in a candy store" is so fitting because we are seeing the tummy ache of too much candy. Do you blame the kid for getting the tummy ache? Sure, there has to be personal responsibility. The kid has to learn a lesson. But what about the parent who let the kid run wild in the store? If you gave a kid $500 and let them loose, don't you think they'd most likely buy candy and not something more nutritious? So the Wall Street folks took the artificially low-interest money and went nuts. How did the kid get the $500? It was given to him for essentially free. Now, what if the kid had had to work hard to earn $20, perhaps by mowing the lawn or some other chore. Wouldn't they be more likely to purchase something of value instead of some candy? The same with Wall Street. Given sound money, investments would be more prudent, and investors would not be buying debt-backed investments at such ravenous rates. The Federal Reserve is ultimately to blame for the mal-investments. By corrupting the free market with cheap money, investors binged on candy and now have a tummy ache. The bailout will be another handout, and another tummy ache (or worse) later down the road. Sure, those investors that lost their scruples will need to pay, to be hurt by the collapse. In that way, the market becomes stronger. If the Federal Reserve continues to inflate the money supply, we will see more bubbles (remember, this "housing" bubble was preceded by the tech bubble, which also was fed by artificially low interest rates). Let's take a look at some other numbers. The 2008 fiscal year ended Sept 30th. On that day, the Federal Debt was $10,024,724,896,912.49. $10 trillion dollars. In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was spawned into being, the Federal Debt was $2.916 billion. Almost a 3,500 times increase. The national debt grew by $1,017.1 billion this year (2008), the first time the debt has grown by over $1 trillion dollars. The rancid cherry is that since Sept. 15th of this year, the debt increased $390.6 billion. In 15 days! 40% of the year's debt in 15 days? Sounds like Sec. Paulson and Bernanke have assured the next few generations an uphill battle to solvency. The $700 billion bailout will not stem the tide. It will not turn the ship. It will do nothing but exacerbate the problem. The silver lining, so far, is that the citizens of this country pressured the House enough to get a 'No' vote on the initial bailout bill. The Senate has passed a turd of a bill that includes the $700 billion bailout, as well as over $150 billion in tax breaks. So they want to take $700 billion and remove another $150 billion from the tax revenue. Doesn't that seem odd? Anyway, if Americans are ever to take their country back, a doubling, tripling, even a quadrupling of efforts is needed to ensure the bill does not pass the House. Now, there are those Congressmen that know the bailout is bad news for the taxpayer, but they can't get help but feel like they need to do something. Here's how you can help them do something. When you call, fax, and email them, everyday, you can mention that they should support three bills: HR 2755 (Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act), HR 2756 (Honest Money Act), and HR 4683 (Free Competition in Currency Act). These three bills will help the economy recover in a more timely manner and with more lasting changes that will discourage this scenario from playing out again. To those Congressmen that voted 'yes' on the initial bailout, they must reverse their votes or else be run out of town. To those that voted 'no' initially, encourage them, thank them, and require them to stay true to that 'no' vote.

Don't buy that politician

James Aimonetti — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:43:06 GMT

From a mailing list:

Just like you wouldn't buy a new car with a serious defect, nor should you vote for a politician with a serious defect and then work to fix it later. You also shouldn't buy a car with a serious defect because the only other car on the lot is an even bigger piece of junk. What should you do? Keep your money and walk, and tell the dealership that you aren't buying until they carry something that's worth buying. That is how we get quality cars, and that's how we'll get quality leaders.

Think voting for a candidate is throwing your vote away because they can't win? Vote for them anyway. Let your voice be heard.