ILL FITTED TAXATION

Today is another day. The Sun is still shining, no matter where you are, high or low, beneath or above the clouds, it's there. There used to be a time, under that same Sun, when failure was acceptable to talk about, and truth was better investigated. Maybe because failure can mean the end of comfort, we avoid it and therefore avoid what lays before us each day; an opportunity to step ahead of our mistakes made in the past. No, there will be no golden-trumpets-of-truth to hit the fan about where the $3 trillion U.S. dollars went. Now we find ourselves unknowing and quick to punish.

"Daddy Warbucks," in this case the common U.S. citizen, has been busy paying for the bailouts of every failed big business. The money intended to jumpstart the economy has only left the economy in sagging disarray while rewarding bad business practices and political organizations for their ill intended business paths. For instance, ACORN received $5.2 billion USD in bailout money, and while currently under Federal investigation of voter fraud. And now the plan is to tax institutions for our own perpetuation of these horrible practices. These unallocated taxes are the kind of taxes that the founders of the U.S. Constitution fought against, taxation without representation. Is the Obama administration as guilty as the U.S. Congressional House and Senate who opened the gates of financial purgatory? Who dealt it smelt it, or is it who smelt it dealt it?

And still, ironically enough President Obama stated that "While the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it is still operating under the exact same rules that led to its near collapse." He is suppose to be the protector of the United States and representitive of the Constitution who tells Congress "You shall not pass" when they try to reward businesses who have spent beyond their ability to produce revenue. Now it seems we live in an age of titles of nobility, and of course not to be confused with real nobility. President Obama now wants to punish the very banks he saved by implementing a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" at a yearly rate of $1,500 for every $1 million borrowed to finance lending and other activities. This could mean that every U.S. citizen will pay higher rates when they borrow money. The said intentions of the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" are to force banks into submission and keep them small, creating "leverage." A controlled market, cannot and will not sustain liberty for long. Anarcho-capitalist free market is what our founders intended to have, but of course with a civil government governed by the common citizens and a set of U.S. laws and bindings listed in the U.S. Constitution. This all leaving room for our posterity and property which may bring forward courageous innovations under freedom, as well as a liberty to fail. Failure is important for a society which wishes to be free and helps it make prolific advances towards a better day.

With all that said, and a half an hour later after devouring a bag of Dorito chips, I must conclude; we live in a nation where punishment is brought on in the form of spanking a dead horse. Obama may have good intentions to punish businesses that were awarded bailout money which was spent on frivolously party-times, but where does the line get drawn? Allowing a person, or business to fail is the best thing to do and accounts as a learning process. As Abraham Lincoln said, "The fiery trials through which we pass will light us down in honour or dishonour to the latest generation." Let us learn from these mistakes and move on.

(Sources: Stossel's Report & Holman Jenkins' opinion)

-M.G.Gonzales with N.S.Soria

IMMIGRATION TALKS

Today’s blog does not come to you from any front-page news headlines, any inspiring words from Obama, or from any recent election results upsetting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Rather tonight, I’m more troubled by the story of a dear friend (and fellow Spanish teacher/co-worker) of mine who has had to endure painstakingly long trials as a result of her attempt to legally navigate the US immigration system with her husband. Three years ago, upon getting married, my friend and her husband decided together they desired to make his status in the U.S. legal. According to their attorney (whom they cannot afford), it was legal for him to remain working in the states while waiting for his Permanent Residency Status to be confirmed. Two years later, the law changed, and with his status still pending, he was sent back to Mexico. One year later, his application for legal admission to the US is still indefinitely pending, and my friend is left here, debating with herself over the ethical merits of working here (away from her husband) to support her child, or moving to Mexico to be with her husband at the risk of them not being able to affording supporting a family. The most disturbing part of this story is the sheer commonality of it all. I’m certain we have all known people who have been affected in similar ways by US Immigration Law.

While it might initially seem outrageous to most of us to be sympathizing with any “illegals”, there are many reasons to believe we are creating harmful popular views of immigration under the current direction of our immigration system. After viewing a brief history of our Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureaucracy, one might observe that, historically, the area of Immigration Law fell under the arm of the Department of Commerce or Labor or Justice. Those seem to flow logically with the general purposes that immigration has served in our country in the past. Devastatingly though, upon the year 2003, when we were busy entering Iraq, the USCIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services) was altered in its make-up, and placed under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (also a newly evolved entity of 2003) (SOURCE) . Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Secretary of Homeland Security, who oversees things like “Counterterrorism” and “Preparedness, Response and Recovery”(SOURCE), also has the largest role in “promoting flexible and sound immigration policies and programs” (SOURCE)? We need to shift away from this perception of immigrants as part of “the other” or “potential threat” population, and rather, view them for what they are; future Americans, future us’. This is why efforts to thwart Comprehensive Immigration Reform need to be cautiously examined and avoided if they exist to only instill fear, thereby limiting the potential for greatness that our country really might have.

In the most recent holiday issue of the Economist, one article argues that “a country’s economic prospects depend in large measure on whether it is a place where people want to be”. Essentially, the more desirable a place is to be, the more creative people it will attract. The more creative people it attracts, the more ingenuity it inspires. And the more ingenuity it inspires, the greater its numbers of productivity and prosperity (SOURCE). “No matter where an immigrant hails from, he can find a cluster of his ethnic kin in America”. We need to stop viewing this appealing nature of our essential make-up as a burden, and rather view it as an opportunity and a definitive aspect of our country’s founding and development. We have all descended from migrants who have made their way to America over the past couple hundred years, and we have all descended from people who have played a significant role in the development of this nation into an appealing place to live. If we want to be great, let’s not start fearing this pattern now.

-E.C.Soria

THE WORLD IS MELTING AND SO IS MY BRAIN

I remember being in 5th grade learning the "3 R's," Recycle, Reduce, Reuse, and thinking that if I don't I could leave a barren wasteland in my wake for my children to suffocate and burn to death in. A horrid thought, I know, and one could blame it on my overactive imagination and/or schooling, but whatever the case the media hasn't detracted that sentiment much. Now we use more complex terminology and an array of advertised Green movements that can leave any American afraid of their own SUV's.

But on the horizon is this strange voice that says the science is wrong, the politicians are wrong, and that we've all been fooled! (The Great Global Warming Swindle) Could we dare question the ordained scientist of the IPCC? With the massive amounts of US money involved (SOURCE), and the Global policies that are quickly moving in to place (SOURCE), we probably should. Let's not pull a Galileo all over again.

A British politician and policy adviser, Chistopher Monckton, spoke openly against these treaties that are in the process of being annexed, and brought to light a dirty word, "Government." In an interview, Monckton states, "The extraordinary thing about the draft treaty which I have now seen is that it goes far further than anything that was planned at any previous session. What they're now going to do is to set up a world government, and the word 'Government' actually appears in the treaty. But you heard it here first. The word 'Election, democracy, vote, or ballot' does not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty." (SOURCE) Incredible to think that we've come this far based off of now questionable science that declares the World is melting and it's all our fault. Funny to think that when the IPCC, a source Al Gore used in his Inconvenient Truth documentary, declared that meat production creates large amounts of CO2 emissions that rivals World's transportation system (SOURCE), Al Gore was questioned if he was going to go vegetarian and he said no. (SOURCE) I wonder if this soon-to-be-billionaire flies around to his many guest star appearances and interviews on a private jet? Based on IPCC's science, it doesn't sound like Gore is practicing what he's preaching.

Professor Paul Reither of IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris once said, "This claim that the IPCC is the World's top 1,500-2,500 scientist... you look at the bibliographies of the people and it's simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists." (The Great Global Warming Swindle) And now the meeting of the nations in Copenhagen are working fast to obtain massive global funding and policies for a cause that might be based on questionable science. My suggestion is that if you have an ounce of doubt pay close attention to the Global and National policies that the World is trying to set in place and if you have been reading our blog, I'm sure you're familiar with our feelings about what we think the Constitution and our Forefathers have to say about us meddling too much in International affairs. I think this is a valid concern and we should all beware...

...but still, if you can, keep on Recycling, Reducing and Reusing. I think that's just plain healthy.

-N.S.Soria

A LITTLE THING THE STATE DEPT LIKES TO CALL, FMF

An interesting alliance the United States has maintained since the end of WWII (among many), is that with Israel. Perhaps it’s an interesting relationship, because it defines the understanding of our nation’s character to many ordinary middle eastern citizens. Perhaps it’s interesting because it is the only foreign military that receives billions of dollars in aid while simultaneously receiving the greatest amount of US vetoes against past UN Security Council’s efforts to investigate “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” they may have committed. Perhaps it’s an interesting relationship, because after a two-week long war (between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces), where Israel lost 13 soldiers and Palestine lost over 1,400 people (SOURCE), the US government voiced a disposition of approval by continuing to provide the billions in funds that have propped up the Israeli military to such a position of global prowess.

The more one reads about the relationship between the US federal budget and the finances of the Israeli military, the more one might be more disturbed, than anything, with the general theory behind such foreign policy mechanisms that are so often utilized (in relating to any country) without much question by the American people. The bulk of the money sent annually to the Israeli military comes from what is referred to as the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund. It just so happens that the Israeli military has received especially favored attention from this fund. According to the Congressional Research Service, Israel has been granted nearly $3 billion annually since the year 1985, and this number is only promised to increase by $6 billion over the next decade (SOURCE).

But let us return to the concepts behind the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund. How could such a discreet portion of the State Department ever be justified in funneling billions of American dollars toward the development of foreign militaries? According to the State Department website, stronger foreign militaries can “contribute to international crisis response operations, including peacekeeping and humanitarian crises.” But what happens when these militaries contribute to ongoing humanitarian crises? (Has anyone ever heard of Gaza?). Furthermore, apparently foreign militaries can help “Maintain support for democratically-elected governments that share values similar to the United States for democracy, human rights, and regional stability.” But what happened to our founding fathers’ original beliefs that America is merely “the champion and vindicator only of her own”?? (John Q. Adams). Furthermore, according to our State Department, the FMF exists to “enhance rationalization, standardization, and interoperability of military forces of friendly countries and allies”. I’m not so sure I want “interoperability”, when our countries freedoms were founded on the rationalization that “enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, [America] would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom” (John Q. Adams). (FMF Quotes from SOURCE).

I’m aware that the relationship we have with Israel is not the only relationship we need to question. I’m also aware that the complications of our “interoperability” in the Middle East are beyond the reach of my understanding at this point. But perhaps that’s the point we need to take away with us. “Enlisting under other banners” will always entrench us in more war, more regional conflict, and more compromise when said conflicts directly contradict the strong principles of “liberty” and “equality under the law” that ought to be the things that shape our international identity. Perhaps the complicated bonds of our state department are beyond the reach of our rationalization at this point, because they negate the simplicity of the foreign policy once wish for our nation. It reminds me of how Thomas Jefferson once profoundly aspired for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliance with none”.

-E.C.Soria

THE FEDERAL RESERVE UNDER QUESTION

Over the course of our most current economic crisis, the Federal Reserve has issued over $12 trillion in bailouts and loans. Although the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is currently allowed access to some of the Federal Reserve’s spending records, there are several things in which the GAO is prohibited from auditing (including, but not limited to the Fed’s transactions with foreign central banks, governments, and international financial institutions). (http://www.auditthefed.com/about-the-audit/)

The Federal Reserve (which is actually our country’s third central bank) was originally founded after a bank panic in 1907. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, established the Federal Reserve out of an effort to provide a last resort for banks across the country, in the event of reoccurring “bank runs”, which inevitably lead to panics like the one we experienced in 1907. (A “bank run” is essentially when too many funds are withdrawn by depositors thereby leaving a bank unexpectedly incapable of operating, because most of those funds are not held in reserve, but rather, invested elsewhere.)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Addressing_the_problem_of_bank_panic)

Now is not the time to debate whether or not the Federal Reserve System was an adequate approach to preventing bank panics, or financial crises. But it certainly is time to question the constitutionality of a monetary institution pulling on trillions of dollars from the US Treasury, and yet somehow free from answering the simple question being begged by the American people—Where exactly did all of this money go?

Although the complete abolition of the Fed might be a fringe idea, the mere auditing of the Fed is not. Recently, HR 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act (which mandates a GAO audit of the Fed), has 317 supporters in the House of Representatives. The question of how the Senate will respond still remains…

Not surprisingly, Federal Reserve President Mr. Bernanke seems to be one of the only outspoken opponents of such a bill. “Speaking recently at the Economic Club of Washington, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke stressed the importance of the Fed's role as a supervisor and reiterated his opposition to a plan that would expose the central bank's monetary policy decisions to review from the Government Accountability Office.” (Sloan, http://www.onwallstreet.com January 1, 2010). If “monetary policy-making” includes the spending of $12 trillion of the American people’s money, I can’t imagine a reasonable argument as to why we ought not to have the right to see where this money is going.

By the way, if you would like to urge your senator to support the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act S 604, calling for greater transparency in this monetary policy making of the Federal Reserve, click here: http://www.auditthefed.com/?mode=actionpage

-E.C.Soria

HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND MERRY CHRISTMAS?

As we walk around observing the lights of the Holiday Season, one cannot escape the battle of "political correctness" under the displays of sugar plumbs and candy canes. It's an issue that has been prevalent within our country over these last few decades and as of late, political measures have been taken to ensure the words, "Merry Christmas," be expelled from our government institutions. The
explanation lies in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, during his Presidency in 1801. He briefly mentions that there should be a, "wall of separation between church and state," but before that he blatantly declares that our government should make, "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof..." [Thomas Jefferson, January 1st, 1801] But here we are today watching our own government take immediate action to swoop in to school systems preventing celebratory words being displayed because they are associated with a specific religious belief.

Can't we at least come to the agreement that our very Constitution was founded by God-fearing men, and founded on a moral law that had rich roots in religion, and more specifically, Christianity? That it was those foundational beliefs that encouraged them to allow liberty equally to all men? John Adams, an important player in the Constitutions' creation, wrote in a letter to Jefferson that, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” [June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson] Jefferson's position was not a complete removal of God and Government, but of Government preventing God. Isn't that exactly what the Government is doing now?

Now we've become sensitive to even declaring to other people, "Have a Merry Christmas." Why so, when it's a holiday like any other holiday and at its core holds wonderful value sets; friends, family, love, and merriment? That's what I'm saying when I want someone to have a Merry
Christmas. I'm not trying to convert someone to my religious beliefs but am merely sharing a celebration, which I hold dear to my heart. I'll gladly wish people a "Happy Holidays" along with my "Merry Christmas," but it's sad when our governmental institutions can't share the same sentiment and yet if you go to a foreign country, like China, they have no problem sharing that merriment. "[In the United States] Christmas carols were banned in public government agencies of any kind. You couldn't sing them. The banners were being removed. I happened to be in Beijing, China, and I remembered standing in Tiananmen Square, biting cold day... snow blowing... shivering there with hundreds of others... remembering what happened there years ago and then walking contiguously to the Forbidden City. First gate another 50-75 yards, second gate another 50-75 yards, third gate... you walk in through the 5th gate and there you see the old palace built in the 1400s and a big banner, 'Merry Christmas.'" [Ravi Zacharias, "Secularism and the Illusion of Neutrality," Penn State University] So as they say in China, Merry Christmas everybody!

-N.S.Soria

U.S. HEALTH CARE REFORM BILLED

Former President Bill Clinton urged Democratic Senators to pass health care reform this year stating, “the worst thing to do is nothing”. Economist Paul Krugman recently reiterated this tone of urgency, when he stated, “we should be more concerned about the consequences of health care reform not passing than passing” (Weiss, Forbes, 12/14/09). It seems the health care debate in Washington has been dwindled down to a mere rush against the clock, a dialogue seeking any reform rather than the best reform. I suppose the American people are left to answer the lingering questions without much help from Congress….

What will happen to the finances of private Health Insurers and Providers, as more people gravitate towards a public, government-run option for health coverage? According to the health care reform bill in the Senate right now (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), the public option (created to “compete” with the private options) will be financed by taxpayers and run in a similar manner to Medicare. But in reality, “Medicare reimburses doctors and hospitals at rates 70% to 80% below those of private insurers” (WSJ, A20, 12/11/09). Naturally, hospitals and doctors are forced to eat their losses by treating people covered with a public option or they turn and raise prices for those with private insurance. Either way, it was dauntingly noted in the same article that about half of U.S. hospitals are running a deficit or are close to it. It seems apparent that adding more patients under a government bill will follow former patterns in causing greater increases in the costs burdened upon the private payer or the hospitals. It sounds like this type of reform might therefore put us back in square one. If so, “doing nothing” doesn’t sound like the worst option if it happens to save us from spending $900 billion on a program that only drives costs up for health care consumers.

Another lingering question might be related to the sudden demand this bill would pose on family or general practitioners. The Washington Post published an interesting story about a family practitioner who serves in a rural area in Texas (“The Only Doctor in Town” 12/5/09). This single doctor is responsible for proving medical services for families stretching across a 25-mile radius. This same article mentioned the recent pattern of shortage in general practitioners graduating from Medical School, because the financial incentives for studying a specialty are more than worth it for students accruing the thousands of dollars of debt that Medical School imposes. If the status-quo is already leaving us with a deficit in family doctors, I can only imagine that deficit widening as people are more likely to make general visits if they know those visits will be covered by checks from the government.

These questions inevitably lead back to the moral rhetoric behind the push for health care reform. I mean, how can I even ask these questions and still have a heart? Although, it seems more popular to view health care as a human right, we must remember how we first attained such a position to even make such high demands for what we are inherently entitled to by virtue of our humanity. Health care started as an industry. Our doctors are the best and most specialized in the world because we have a system that provides incentives for all the work it takes to get to the places of greatness in which our medical professionals currently find themselves. Essentially, our health care system has been an industry; providing incentives for continued innovation, research, and risk-taking. Unfortunately, industrious development always leaves room for inequality. But ought we to demonize the process by which health care took in its development while simultaneously exclaiming that everybody has a natural right to take advantage of its benefits?

-E.C.Soria