Posts tagged ‘Government’

01/14/2013

Need “Borrowing” Not “Debt” Ceiling

The “Debt Ceiling” is once again being debated in Congress, but it shouldn’t be, since we have no choice, but to pay the financial obligations we already have. Defaulting on our loans is not a realistic or responsible option as it would do nothing but lower our credit rating and trigger negative global responses.

The debate should instead occur much earlier whenever Congress borrows money.  If we are going to have a “ceiling,” it should be as to the amount we borrow. Whenever right-wing politicians vote for another war, or a new weapons system, without raising taxes to pay for them, they should first be required to raise a “Borrowing Ceiling.” This is where the issue might make a difference, since borrowing is not a necessity.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the power “to borrow money” is specifically delegated to the Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8). Congress must approve of any measure that causes borrowing. It is not a power assigned to the Executive. The President does not write the budget. The House must stop blaming the President for spending and they must face their constitutional duty to control it.

Right-wing politicians, who control the House, where all budget bills originate, are famous for supporting all sorts of wasteful military spending, without raising taxes, but once they authorize spending, it’s a waste of time to debate the issue of paying for the military toys previously purchased with a credit card.

It’s time for the Republican House to act like adults, take responsibility, and significantly cut the Defense Budget, or raise taxes to pay for the military spending they previously supported.

Advertisements
02/23/2012

Republican Debate in Arizona (2-22-12)

WAR: Paul correctly said a “pre-emptive war” is a “war of aggression.” We have been fighting offensive, not defensive wars. If we go to war against Iran, Paul said, it should be done properly, by first asking Congress for a Declaration of War. Gingrich foolishly said there are moments when you engage in pre-emptive war (also known as illegal aggression under international law).

DEFENSE: Paul predicted the Draft would be brought back, because we are in way over our heads. He said foreign aid ends up helping our enemies. Santorum thinks Defense Spending takes a smaller portion of the budget than in the past, and he would not cut it. Romney accused Obama of shrinking the Navy, Air Force, and active-duty personnel by 50,000 to 100,000. He would instead add ships, planes, and personnel by 100,000. He responded to Santorum’s problem with women in the military, saying they have the capacity to serve in responsible positions.

MIDEAST/SYRIA/PAKISTAN: Paul said Al Qaida is bankrupting us as they bogged us down in the Mideast, where we have spent 4 trillion in the last 10 years. We don’t have money for another war in Syria, he said. Santorum thinks Syria is a puppet of Iran. Romney said Syria shadows Lebanon, and threatens Israel. He wants the Alawites in Syria to abandon Assad. He is also concerned with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

IRAN: Paul said we don’t know if Iran has a nuclear weapon, but they cannot possibly attack anyone, because we have 45 bases, plus submarines, all around their country. All we are doing is making them feel threatened, and encouraging them to get a bomb. Sanctions are already backfiring, he said, because they cause Iranians to rally behind their leaders. We don’t have money for another war in Iran, Paul said. Gingrich accused Ahmadinejad of being a dictator, of denying the Holocaust, of wanting to push the U.S. out of the Mideast, and eliminate Israel from the face of the map. Romney wants crippling sanctions against Iran. He actually believes if Iran obtains fissile material, they will give it to Hezbollah and Hamas, who will take it into Latin America, where they will “potentially” bring it across the U.S. border, and then detonate “dirty bombs.” He thinks Obama told Israel not to take any action.

LATIN AMERICA: Romney thinks Hezbollah is operating in Latin America. He noted Northern Mexico is a problem.

IMMIGRATION: Paul wants us to forget about the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and deal with our own. We need to reward legal immigration, he said. He thinks the welfare state causes immigrants to cross over for benefits. Romney enabled his state police to take them out by enforcing illegal immigration laws. He fought for English emersion classes in schools. He said since e-verify allows employers to know who is here legally, illegals have dropped by 14%. Santorum would create a loophole in e-verify, by not requiring homeowners to use it. Gingrich said the failure to control our border is a failure of will. He wants a President who works with governors, not sues them. He said the fence between San Diego and Tijuana worked, even though it is in a densely-populated area. The further the fence was extended, the fewer crossed into California. He would move half the Dept of Homeland Security to border states to get the fencing done. He voted for a employer-sanction law in 1986, signed by Reagan, which was to have solved the immigration problem. He said people who do business in Mexico, do not want the border closed.

ENERGY: Gingrich does not want American Presidents to have to bow to Saudi Kings over energy. He believes Iran is partly responsible for what is going on at the gas pump, as one of every five barrels of oil goes through the Straits of Hormuz. We should get into the position where we could say we do not care what the Mideast does. If we opened up federal lands and offshore areas for development, Gingrich said, and replaced the EPA, the government would realize 16 to 18 trillion in royalties, and gas prices would drop to $2.50 per gallon.

BANKS: Romney said: “I didn’t want to save Wall Street banks.” He was worried the entire currency system would go down.

AUTO: Paul said the government should not be in the business of supporting auto labor contracts. He reminded the audience Santorum opposed the auto bailout. Santorum said he helped the airline industry after 911, because the government shut them down. He said Romney is not principled, as he was for the Wall Street bailout, but against helping Detroit auto workers. Romney admitted he wanted the auto companies to go through a “managed” bankruptcy, like the airlines did, to shed excessive costs imposed by the UAW. He took a contradictory position however saying: “No way would we allow the auto industry in America to totally implode and disappear.” Gingrich agreed a managed bankruptcy would have been best for the auto industry.

HOUSING: Paul said the government should not bail out housing.

HEALTH: Gingrich said when the government becomes the central provider of services, they inevitably move towards tyranny, as they force people to do things. Santorum promised to target Medicare for budget cuts. He pledged to repeal Obamacare. He said he always opposed Title X funds, but pushed abstinence-based program spending under Title XX. He accused the Mass health law of being the model for Obamacare. Romney said states have the right under the 10th Amendment to do what he did in Mass. He would repeal Obamacare, because he doesn’t think the federal government should cut Medicare by 500 billion.

EDUCATION: Paul said the Constitution gives the federal government no power in education. He said Santorum is a fake, because he votes for No Child Left Behind, but now he wants to get rid of it. Santorum said he is a home schooling father of seven children. When he voted for No Child Left Behind, it was a mistake, and he now thinks the federal government should get out of education. Romney agreed children should be tested in math and English before they graduate. Gingrich would shrink the federal Dept of Education down to nothing but research. He thinks teachers unions only care about protecting bad teachers.

SOCIAL SECURITY: Santorum said we need to “deal with” Social Security. He said “all” the seniors in Pennsylvania rely on it, because the rich ones moved to Florida and Arizona.

WELFARE: Santorum said poverty in single-parent households is five times greater than two-parent homes. His solution is to go after food stamps (to make sure hungry people go without). Romney would block grant Medicare, housing vouchers, and food stamps to the states.

GOVERNMENT: Romney would link government pay to private sector pay. Gingrich would repeal 130-year-old civil service laws.

BUDGET/DEBT/TAXES: Santorum said he was rated most fiscally conservative in his 12 years in the Senate. He explained earmarking is abused, and would oppose their use as President. We cannot default on the Debt Ceiling, he added. He said Romney is now suggesting raising taxes on the top 1 percent. Romney said the earmark process is broken, and he would ban it, because it opens the door to excessive spending. He supports a line-item veto to deal with earmarks. He would ask if a program justifies borrowing from China to pay for it. He claimed he balanced his state budget all four years. Santorum said the only reason Romney balanced his budget was his state constitution required it. Gingrich wants a balanced budget. He would eliminate capital gains taxes on more than just those earning less than $200,000. Paul said he never voted for a budget deficit, or an increase the National Debt. He said we pay gas taxes into a trust fund, and should get our fair share, but they spend it overseas.

CONSTITUTION: Paul said he is the defender of the Constitution and liberty, and his platform is the road to peace and prosperity. The Constitution does not provide “women’s rights or men’s rights,” There are no group rights. He said we take an oath to our office, not to a political party to vote the way they want.

RELIGION: Romney alleged we have never seen attacks like these against religious conscience, freedom, and tolerance.

ABORTION/CONTRACEPTION: Paul said the government should not spend money on abstinence. Pills don’t cause immorality, people do. Romney alleged Obama was trying to require Catholics to provide birth control, sterilization, and morning-after pills. He said he stood on the side of life, when his legislature refused to define it as starting at conception. He vetoed a bill regarding embryo farming and cloning. He said liberals go crazy over teaching abstinence. He denied requiring Catholic hospitals to provide morning after pills. He said the Mass. health law did not require contraceptive coverage. He said Santorum opposed contraceptives, but voted for Title X. Gingrich claimed state senator Obama voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived abortions. He wants Planned Parenthood to get nothing. Santorum said, if elected, he would talk about the “dangers of contraception.” He illogically added we have a problem of children born out of wedlock. He said this doesn’t mean he wants a government program to fix it.

ADOPTION: Romney sided with Catholic adoption agencies regarding their preference for placement in homes with a man and a woman. He wanted the Catholic Church to stay in the adoption business, as they were responsible for half of them in Mass.

01/24/2012

Income Tax: All Sources Need Same Rate

Mitt Romney, who disclosed an income of 22 million in 2010, and lawfully paid only 14% in federal taxes, has on the campaign trail repeatedly championed the cause of the upper 1%, by advocating an end all taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains, which coincidentally were his primary sources of income. If he becomes the Republican nominee, President Obama must fight back for the 99%, by subjecting “all” sources of income to the same 15%, 28%, 33%, and 35% tax rates, applied to ordinary earned income.

Obama must make the case that Romney, who did nothing illegal, should never have been granted a 15% rate in the first place, but should have paid 35% on his investments, and if he had, the government would have collected 7.7 million in taxes from him, instead of just 3 million, and “poor Mitt” would have netted only 14.3 million of new money in 2010, instead of 19 million.

We need to remember that when the 16th Amendment (1913) was ratified nearly 100 years ago, the income tax was intended to tax only the rich. Its original purpose was to collect income from “all” sources, as it stated: “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived….” Current tax law, consistent with the 16th Amendment, still defines “gross income” as “all income from whatever source derived.” It includes “earned income” from wages, as well as “unearned income” from: 1) Interest; 2) Dividends; 3) Capital Gains; and 4) Rents.

While “earned income,” that is, money which comes from actually getting up in the morning and punching the clock at a typical workplace, is taxed for single people at 25% on sums between $34,501 and $83,601, “unearned income,” made by those who can sip a casual cup coffee while reading the Wall Street Journal at the Polo Club, enjoy a much lower 15% rate. While working people must also pay a 7.65% “payroll tax” to the Social Security retirement and Medicare trust funds, Romney-types, who live off the work of others, contribute nothing to those programs.

The rich, who do not need to work, make most of their money from the following sources:

1) “Interest Income” from state and local municipal bonds has a 0% tax rate and is totally exempt from federal taxes.

2) “Dividends” on stocks held for minimum periods are “qualified” and taxed as long-term capital gains, at just 15%.

3) “Capital Gains,” realized from selling investments, held more than a year, are long-term capital gains, taxed at the low 15% rate.

4) “Rental Income,” received by those who can afford to invest in apartments or office buildings, is usually reduced by interest and depreciation expenses, significantly lowering tax liabilities.

Romney argues people like him cannot pay the 35% rate, because that would kill jobs. If he paid 7.7 million in taxes instead of 3 million, jobs would go away, he argues. But why does it matter if he nets 19 or 14.3 million in one year? The truth is: it doesn’t.

Romney, not only wants direct tax cuts on investments, he would lower corporate income taxes from 35% to 25%, triggering even more “qualified dividends” to be issued to him at the 15% rate.

Romney would also help big banks, and hurt local governments by cutting taxes on interest to 0%. Wealthy investors would shift deposits from tax-free state and local municipal bonds to bank accounts, causing more budget problems for local governments.

Romney thinks reducing taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains will help the Middle Class on their investments, but he fails to realize that clearly half of all Americans have absolutely no investments whatsoever–no pensions, stocks, bonds–nothing.

Romney also legally earned far more than his personal tax returns reveal. It would be shocking if he has no Irrevocable Trusts, which file separate returns. The press should ask about them. He should also be pressed to release “multiple years,” as he promised, and perhaps 12, for as his father said in 1967, when he made his taxes public, “one year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.”

Mitt, who admitted he didn’t grow up poor, is not our man, as he lacks the background to be President. He is consistently out-of-touch with normal people. While “poor Mitt” would bet Gov. Perry $10,000 over the content of his book, most regular people would not have wagered more than $10. Sorry, Mitt, you just cannot relate. We don’t want you as President. You would be appreciated much more if you just made money and paid 35% in taxes.

While the government desperately needs taxes to shore up annual deficits and the National Debt, regular Americans are perhaps now slowly realizing that lowering taxes on the rich, really means increases for all else, since someone has to pay for government.

01/23/2012

Justice Gableman: A Question of Ethics

The failure of Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman to disqualify himself in cases argued by a law firm that allegedly provided free legal services to him, ostensibly under a contingent fee contract, is troubling, since it raises several ethics questions.

Although the public may not know it, all Wis. lawyers and judges are regulated under a state Code of Professional Responsibility.

When Justice Gableman first ran for the Supreme Court in 2008, as a lawyer and aspiring judge, he had an ethical duty to conduct his campaign a dignified manner, and to avoid making willful misrepresentations, or false charges against his opponent.

Now, new ethics questions have arisen, not only as to the receipt of legal services by the Justice, without payment, but also as to his failure to disclose the arrangement to all counsel, when his lawyer appeared, and to disqualify himself from ruling on those matters.

Although the public once again may not know it, all lawyers are under an ethical duty to defend judges against unwarranted charges, in order to protect the integrity of the legal system. But there is also a corresponding duty to improve the legal system, by helping the public select judges. To help the public decide the fate of Justice Gableman, it is necessary to discuss his ethical issues.

When lawyers accept cases, they have an ethical duty to explain the fee arrangement, which must be reduced to writing, when it is contingent upon the outcome. Contingent fees are payable as a percentage from any final settlement, or judgment. They cannot be used in criminal cases, custody matters, or in other disputes, where the client can pay a reasonable fixed fee. They are not to be used where the client seeks action from the government.

The canons of ethics instruct lawyers not to use public positions to obtain special advantages. Although lawyers may contribute to judicial election campaigns, they may not otherwise give or lend any item of value to a judge, except as permitted by the Canon of Judicial Ethics. Judges are not to accept gifts from anyone, certainly not someone likely to appear in front of them in court.

Lawyers are to promote public confidence in the legal system Judges in particular are to maintain high personal standards, by promoting confidence in the judiciary.

When a Supreme Court Justice looks out into his courtroom and sees an attorney who gave him legal services, free of charge, at the very least, he should turn to opposing counsel, and advise him of that fact, and if there is even the slightest “appearance of impropriety,” the justice should disqualify himself from the case.

Justice Gableman, when you kicked off your 2008 campaign, and disclosed you graduated from Hamline University School of Law in 1993, where I had studied in the 1970s, a part of me was happy, because you were the first Hamline Law grad to run for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But you lost ground when you started running questionable ads against Justice Butler in 2008, and now you disappointed fellow alumni even further, due to your ethics.

What you may not realize, Justice Gableman, is ethics is the very reason Hamline Law School came into being. While the undergraduate college at Hamline is the oldest in Minnesota, dating back to 1854, the law school first opened in 1972, when a group of young professors, from some of the most prominent law schools in America, joined forces with a few retired judges, and formed a faculty willing to help a rag-tag group of students, who had survived the Civil Rights and Vietnam era, earn law degrees, so they could change the world, starting with Watergate ethics.

I still have my Hamline Law School bulletin from the 1970s, which indentifies ethics as a required course. I am sure, Justice Gableman, the topic was still taught two decades later, when you attended. I know Hamline also used the same ethics textbook as the UW-Madison Law School, and it mentions the “avoidance of even the appearance of impropriety.” I further know, in the 1970s already, Hamline had intelligent professors, who had studied at Harvard, NYU, Michigan, Duke, Rutgers, UCLA, Minnesota, Boston College, and Wisconsin, and so it’s no excuse for you, Justice Gableman, to argue your professors were not up to speed.

Perhaps most disappointing, Justice Gableman, is you let down those Hamline alumni who considered ethics their primary concern, as they represented unpopular clients, and provided legal services to the poor and working classes, over the past 40 years.

08/25/2011

Low Interest Rates: Correct Fed Policy

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve correctly used Monetary Policy to try to turn the economy around, by keeping home mortgage interest rates at their lowest level in 40 years.

Congress created the Federal Reserve System with a Central Bank in 1913 to help prevent recessions and other economic downturns from turning into depressions. Since then, all National Banks have joined the system.

The Federal Reserve has the ability to set interest rates for loans to member banks. When the Fed sets low interest rates, members are able to make loans to the public at correspondingly low rates. The availability of cheap money theoretically allows the economy to expand, provided other factors line up correctly.

Low interest rates at the Fed also help the U.S. Government when short-term loans are needed. Since interest on these loans is later turned over to the U.S. Treasury, the Fed basically provides interest-free money to the government. The principal sums borrowed from the Fed are repaid by the government with money raised from publically sold Treasury Bonds. Interest on the bonds is paid by the U.S. Treasury, until the bondholders are satisfied.

The decision by the Fed to keep interest rates low helps the federal government in terms of the annual deficit and national debt, regional banks in allowing them to offer cheap money, and the public, by enabling them to borrow at relatively low rates.

If the Fed now raised interest rates, while the national economy is still struggling to get out of a deep recession, one consequence would be a contraction, and a worsening of the economic crisis. If the Fed imposed higher interest rates, they certainly would not help, and would likely make the housing crisis worse.

Currently, factors other than interest rates are keeping the housing market from expanding. The Fed should continue to keep interest rates low, until measurable improvements are seen in the housing industry, which unfortunately may take the better part of a decade, no matter who occupies the White House or the Congress.

08/23/2011

Post Office Violates Privacy Rights

As I was purchasing a bottle of wine with some food items, the checkout person at the grocery insisted on scanning my Driver’s License, even though I was obviously old enough to be her grand-father. I realized then that the Right to Privacy was in trouble. But what really got me going, later that day, was the discovery that the Post Office had given my home address to unauthorized persons.

I recently moved from one state to another, and directed the Post Office to forward my mail to the house of a relative, so I could continue receiving it, while I stayed in a motel, and looked for a home. After finding a place, I went online to my cell phone site to update my address, and was shocked to discover they were listing my relative’s address as mine, even though I had not given them that address, and was not in fact living there.

I called the phone company and asked how they got that address. The customer service person said he didn’t know at first, but after speaking with a supervisor, he explained they obtained it from the Post Office. The Post Office had shared my forwarding address with the phone company, even though I had not authorized them to do it. After correcting my address with the phone company, the loss of my privacy still bothered me enough to write about it.

What if the situation had involved a woman who was trying to lose a delusional stalker? By simply giving the Post Office a forwarding address, she would have inadvertently allowed anyone who requested updated information to receive it.

The moral of the story is unless you want to leave an address trail, you cannot give the Post Office a Change of Address Form, since they will share your personal private information with anyone who wants to know where you moved to.

Americans have a right to keep their private matters confidential. While major corporations have always had an interest in securing updated addresses, so they can continue sending junk mail that ends up in the trash as soon as it is received, the Congress should never have given in to them. They should not have authorized the Post Office to release private data. It is sad what has happened to the right to privacy in the Internet Age.

08/22/2011

Military Waste: Spending Taxes on Golf

When a friend showed me an ad placed by the U.S. Army seeking a “Professional Golf Management Trainee,” it reminded me of how much waste there is in the military budget.

This is no joke. The Army has a full-time permanent position for a golf trainee. The starting salary is up to $38,000, but the cost to us is much higher, as the position includes full benefits such as: health and life insurance, 401-K retirement, paid holidays, sick leave, vacation time, and possible student loan repayments. Many vacancies exist in the U.S., and relocation bonuses are possible.

The job is said to be “crucial to support military operations.”

Management trainees undergo 24 months of on-the-job training, and 12 months at an Army installation. The training varies by installation, but focuses on golf course and pro shop operations.

The trainee learns how golf courses operate. Training includes: 1) the conduct of play; 2) how to keep the facilities clean and safe; 3) how to make sure the course meets quality golf standards; 4) how the maintain relations with the grounds crew; 5) how to manage the golf cart fleet; and 6) how to oversee the food and beverage for outings and tournaments.

Along with college transcripts, a degree from a Professional Golf Association Management Program is required, along with three professional Letters of Recommendation.

The above is just one example of the waste in the military budget. Can you imagine what the right-wingers at Fox would say if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) considered golf “crucial” to their operations?

If the country is going to cut budgets, let’s not forget there are millions, and probably billions of dollars wasted each year by the military. Military budgets should never be off the table. The politicians should have the courage to examine their spending and eliminate wasteful expenditures not needed for national security.

07/29/2011

Post Office May Go Way Of Pony Express

I went to the Post Office today to buy a book of stamps, and as I pulled into the parking lot, I was ominously forewarned of a long line inside, as I had to wait outside for an open parking stall.

As I walked in, sure enough, there were 15 people in line waiting for help from just one postal worker, because the other employee, at another window, was taking an excessively long time helping one hapless man with what appeared to be a complicated item.

Since I had loaded UPS trucks as a college student, I understood the work of the Post Office, and over the years, I defended them against those inclined to blame everything on mail carriers. Postal workers deliver countless items of mail, six days a week, and they make relatively few mistakes. Most mail generally gets through.

Today, however, I did not feel like defending the Post Office. I thought instead, the agency was on its death bed. The employee who spent such a long time with one clueless customer should have ordered him aside, where he could have figured out his own problem. Because she did not, a female customer holding a package bailed out of the line, and a young man, who had been pacing back and forth, got testy as he finally reached the window.

As I left the building, I chuckled because I saw a Fed Ex box just outside the door. Fed Ex, a private company in competition with the Post Office, was somehow able to convince someone in Congress, or at the Post Office, to let them place their boxes outside Post Office buildings. It was a brilliant move, certain to quicken the demise of the Post Office.

It reminded me of a story my friend told me. When she worked at the Social Security Administration, a federal agency, they were required to use Fed Ex to mail items, instead of the Post Office. It was unbelievable–one federal agency was harming another.

The massive shift to online communications has also hurt the Post Office. Their revenues are dropping, as more and more people now use the Internet. Eventually, pressure will mount to simply do away with the Post Office. It’s been around since the founding of the country, but the way things are going, the Post Office may soon be riding off into the past, along with the Pony Express.

07/28/2011

Ask Eisenhower Re Budget, Not Reagan

One of those free copies of the right-wing USA Today was laying around the hotel lobby, and since I had a minute, I glanced at the opinion page, where the editor asked “What Would Reagan Do?” regarding the Debt Limit. I kind of chuckled, because the borrow-and-spend policies of the past 30 years started under Reagan, and he would be the last person we should ask for advice.

If Republicans wanted a true fiscal model, they should instead ask: What Would Eisenhower Do?” The General was the last Republican to deal honestly with balanced budgets. He knew enough about military spending from his service to warn the nation, as he left office, against the Military-Industrial-Complex.

President Reagan on the other hand, raised the Debt Ceiling 18 times, and just used his Hollywood credit card to keep borrowing. He cut corporate income taxes, but increased Social Security taxes on ordinary workers. His misguided borrow-and-spend policies predictably increased the National Debt threefold over eight years.

Reagan’s apologists now re-write history, as they defend his borrow-and-spend military programs by suggesting they somehow ended the Cold War. The truth is one man ended the Cold War, and his name was not Reagan, it was Mikhail Gorbachev. After Gorbachev wisely withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988, he advocated reform by promoting glasnost (openness) and perestroika (rebuilding). Once Reagan was out of office, and no longer a threat to the Russian people, Gorbachev conducted open elections in 1989, for the first time in 70 years. Gorbachev’s policies allowed for a Soviet dissolution in 1991. Reagan’s out-of-control military spending had nothing to do with it.

The bottom line is for the past 30 years, the U.S. has been in a borrow-and-spend mode. Since major sources of tax revenues were given away by Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr., the government does not have enough money. In the Eisenhower days of the 1950s, there had to be tax revenues, before any spending took place, and yes, that included military budgets for wars, like the ones Bush Jr. started in Afghanistan and Iraq. Eisenhower would have raised taxes to pay for those wars. The Republicans of today would be wise to use Ike’s approach as their model for governing.

07/27/2011

Airport Security: There’s Only One Class

This past weekend I flew out to California for a wedding, and on the way home, I was troubled at the Orange County Airport, as I observed two separate lines for Airport Security, one for First Class passengers, and another for everyone else.

While the airlines have the right to provide larger seats and better service for those willing to pay more for their tickets, the U.S. Government, which pays the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), has no right to discriminate against ordinary passengers in favor of rich ones. The inconvenience of going through Airport Security has absolutely nothing to do with the price of the ticket purchased from one of the private carriers.

While I am sure First Class passengers have demanded better and more preferential treatment, the U.S. government should ignore their hollow and baseless complaints and should treat them like everyone else.

It would be like exempting the rich from food or gas rationing during WWII. Every American citizen had to go through the same rationing during that war.

The problem is Big Government is in bed with Big Business and the rich so often they forget average citizens have the same rights, privileges, and obligations as rich people.

Since when did 911 mean that the rich get to cut in line in front of the rest of us ordinary people? The wealthy should be required to suffer the identical inconveniences and hassles all the rest of the public must endure.

Whoever in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) or in Congress created or allowed the establishment of separate security lines based on wealth should lose their job. There is only one class when it comes to going through airport security and we are all a part of it.