Sunday, January 31, 2010

Glad To See It

In an eariler blog, Main Street One stated that it would be nice to see criminal investigations into any possibilities of financial fraud or the like with regard to our economic woes of 2008.

As reported by the Associated Press (Jan 31, 2010: Watchdog: Bailouts created more risk in system), special inspector general Neil Barofsky said that "his office is investigating 77 cases of possible criminal and civil fraud, including crimes of tax evasion, insider trading, mortgage lending and payment collection, false statements and public corruption."

That is excellent news. If there are charges to bear it would be to all of our best interests if they were to be soon.

The above was not all that he said, to be sure.

His was a report on the trouble asset relief program (TARP) and, while the White House and others do not fully embrace Barofsky's report, what he does bring to light is quite interesting.

(From AP) "Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car," Barofsky wrote.

And the investigation he is leading will, no doubt, play a role in any reform that is implemented to ensure that a meltdown does not occur in the future.

(From AP) "The government has stepped in where the private players have gone away," Barofsky said in an interview. "If we take government resources and replace that market without addressing the serious (underlying) concerns, there really is a risk of" artificially pushing up home prices in the coming years.

Which leaves us exactly where?

According to the AP article, the US Governemnt (read US Taxpayer) is spending $1.25 Trillion to prop up and hold together the housing market.

That is something like $50,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

And, of course, that is also borrowed money, as the Federal Deficit exceeds that staggering amount a few times over.

Time will tell what the Administration will do.

Hopefully, it will be sooner rather than later and will actually be truly meaningful for the future of our Country.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

State of the Union 2010

President Obama delivered his State of the Union 2010 address tonight.

There were several items he spoke about with which I agree.

What remains to be seen is how they will get implemented, how they will ultimately affect the national debt, especially in light of the fact that starting next year he is proposing a three-year freeze on government spending, and "the pay as you go" plan.

However, I will not take up time speaking about those things that would be nice to achieve for Main Street USA.

Well, except for education.

I agree that there needs to be reform, but with the power that the teacher's unions and others wield I am unsure how that will be achieved.

While there are those who do not feel that the No Child Left Behind Act, passed and implemented under President Bush but co-authored by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, is working, it is interesting to note that one of the reasons is that there were those within the education community at the local level who, basically, did what they could to thwart "outsiders" coming in to assist their most needy students.

Case in point, when Paul Vallas was Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia (one of the largest in the country) he implemented something new every year that not only discouraged but made it nearly impossible for companies, community centers and churches to provide Supplemental Educational Services to their students. And today, Philadelphia is feeling the pain of those actions.

And there are many other cases like that of Vallas.

Thus, unless and until the internal obstacles are dealt with agressively, education reform, of any sort, will fail. I truly hope that President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan can accomplish this task they seek.

On to the few points where what is proposed is not good for Main Street USA.

First and foremost are the infamous earmarks.

Even though the President stated, while campaigning, that he would not pass legislation that contains earmarks, it continues. What is now being requested by him is that there be a website listing all earmarks so the people can see where their money is going.

And while the President states he does not like or approve of earmarks, had certain pieces of pork not been added to the senate version of healthcare reform, behind closed doors with Senator Harry Reid, it would not have achieved the super-majority vote of 60 US Senators in favor of the bill.

It is still this taxpayer's opinion that earmarks are nothing more than a Congressional Special Interest Group.

And, while the President feels that the US Supreme Court decision allowing companies to fund political advertising was wrong and would open up all kinds of problems for the country, the amount of money corporations would spend would still, more than likely, be a pitance to the massive sums of earmarks offered to politicans (for their states) to secure their vote for a particular bill.

Yes, Main Street USA those are your tax dollars at work-in another state.

There is also too much evidence to show that the healthcare reform that has been proposed will not achieve what is being promised.

One major point that would definitely reduce healthcare and insurance costs overall is Tort Reform.

Again, no one, not President Obama, not any Senator nor member of the House, is proposing such an action.

What exactly do they fear?

Will they lose previous campaign contributions?

Tough if they do. These elected representatives, every single one of them, are supposed to be serving Main Street USA.

So, yes, President Obama is right, we need healthcare reform.

No, we do not need what has been proposed.

Republicans and Democrats need to come together and draft legislation that provides most of the basics the President wants, but does not force people into buying health insurance, by fining or taxing them, if they do not wish to do so. (As a note, between 25% and 30% of the total number of people being counted as uninsured fall into this category.)

Food for thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Sunday, January 24, 2010

What Is A Special Interest Group?

Special Interest Groups (SIGs) may be good or may be bad.

That, of course, would depend upon a particular SIG promoting what you believe in and support, or (more coarsely) your agenda—or not.

According to Wikipedia: "An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or special interest group) is an organization that seeks to influence political decisions."

And from Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia: "Any association of individuals or organizations, usually formally organized, that, on the basis of one or more shared concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favour."

The question, then, is this:

Are not both branches of Congress Special Interest Groups?

Did not Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on Dec 19, 2009, admit to such things as: "You will find a number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation is all about. It's compromise."

To be clear, Reid, in closed sessions, offered Senators from a few states (who were not going to vote for the Senate’s version of healthcare reform) additional benefits, tacked on to the already massive bill, in order to secure their votes and reach that high and mighty number 60.

Would the actions of Senator Reid not qualify as "special interest?"

Would not the billions and billions of dollars of earmarks added on to various pieces of legislation that have passed through Congress and the White House (from both parties) be considered as the work of a SIG, or even a group of SIGs working together?

Granted, certain (probably many) pieces of pork may have been the work of an outside SIG (i.e., association SIG, labor union SIG, business SIG, etc.) over the years, but the work done on Capitol Hill with healthcare reform, was really the work of the Congressional SIG.

Thus, when politicians (or anyone for that matter) complain about SIGs and the influence they may wield upon the political and legislative process, and how it may threaten our Freedom and Liberty, it seems that Main Street USA only has to look (if that were literally possible) at what goes on "behind closed doors" to find the truth.

Food For Thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Thank You Chris Gardner & Will Smith !

Loved this Will Smith movie, and the message it provides:



Over For Now.

Main Street One

JFK and Taxes

President John F Kennedy served Main Street USA:



Over For Now.

Main Street One

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Supreme Court Decision: Good or Bad?

Since hearing about the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn a 63-year old law and allow big (and small) businesses and labor unions, basically, unlimited use of their money to fund political advertising I am still undecided about the impact that this will have on politics in Washington.

On the one hand it does seem that having laws in place that do not allow such to happen is a violation of free (well, paid) speech.

However, I am not convinced that having the law in place actually stopped any special interest money from finding influence in our political process.

There, I am at disagreement with President Obama. 

As reported by the Associated Press, President Obama states, "This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don't."

Will that really be the case?

Let's face it, if businesses or labor unions really want to contribute to something or buy something, they find a way to do it (generally through very well-paid attorneys).

I do not think that Main Street USA is blind to the fact that people and corporations and labor unions set up dummy companies and organizations (i.e., Citizens For ... or Citizens Against ...) to get their message across.

I do think it would be prudent that with the High Court's decision there should be in place some form of legislation that enforces disclosure of exactly who is running the ads that will undoubtedly be run.

As well, perhaps companies and unions should not be allowed any form of tax deduction for political campaign expense.

And, let's face it, politicians will be attempting to gather every bit of political capital from the very businesses and labor unions this ruling will affect. Anyone who thinks differently is simply naive.

So, is it really going to be so different?

Or, will be be, perhaps, more transparent?

Food for thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Banking & Insurance Regulation

It is unclear to this taxpayer why there is such a disparity between the handling of banks that were viewed as causing the Financial Collapse of 2008 and the healthcare reform proposals aimed at insurance companies.

The one similarity that does jump out is that our government is attempting to super-regulate both industries, and, in the case of House Bill 3200 (healthcare reform), possibly even eliminate the insurance industry altogether.

Case in point, as reported in the New York Times this morning, President Obama has called for an overhaul in the banking arena: "Mr. Obama said the banks had nearly wrecked the economy by taking 'huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses.' The administration wants to ban bank holding companies from owning, investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds and from engaging in proprietary trading, or trading on their own accounts, as opposed to the money of their customers."

That in itself may not be a bad thing. Afterall, the entirety of Main Street USA suffered the consequences.

The NYT also reported, "Mr. Obama also is seeking to limit consolidation in the financial sector, by placing curbs on the market share of liabilities at the largest firms. Since 1994, the share of insured deposits that can be held by any one bank has been capped at 10 percent. The administration wants to expand that cap to include all liabilities, to limit the concentration of too much risk in any single bank."

That one does seem logical.

However, the ideas being formulated and, indeed, legislation that has already been written (fortunately, not passed) actually amount to more and more government regulation occurring in every large industry. 

Should there be more scrutiny placed in the discovery, and prosecution, of criminal activities by, perhaps, a handful of over-zealous, greedy people? That would certainly send a message throughout the financial sector.

As this topic relates to the banking industry, there are either too many existing loopholes in current law allowing financial institutions to be reckless with OPM (other people's money) or certain individuals at those businesses simply broke the law executing their plans for profit.

Either way, there does not appear to this taxpayer enough reason to completely overhaul and, eventually, over-regulate the entire banking extablishment.

As to healthcare reform, which is needed, one reason why insurance costs what it does is due to X-Tort (extreme tort) compensation awarded in litigation. 

However, not one person in the White House, Senate or House of Representatives has proclaimed that Tort Reform (which would affect the income of attorneys) is needed in an attempt to scale back the cost of insurance. (At least, if there are any elected officials talking about this aspect they must be whispering.)

Yet, Tort Reform is definitely a large component of what is needed, not government-run healthcare.

There are still too many ideas floating around Capitol Hill these days that amount to government over-regulation of our lives and the eventual erosion of America's Bill of Rights.

If our elected officials really believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they should pay much more attention to the words of our Founding Fathers.

To wit:

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. Patrick Henry

Most bad government has grown out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Friday, January 22, 2010

Who Needs Spell Check ? ? ?

Ran across these. Pretty self-explanatory. Unsure of who the credit for each belong to, but thank you for sharing.














Tuesday, January 19, 2010

On The Lighter Side

I received this as an email forward probably 7 or 8 years ago. No idea who sent it out originally, but thank you, whoever you are!

Many people have probably seen it. For those who haven't enjoy.
__________

You have to be old enough to remember Abbott and Costello, and too old to REALLY understand computers, to fully appreciate this.

For those of us who sometimes get flustered by our computers, please read on...for those who don't, you are too young anyway, but it is still very funny.

If Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were alive today, their infamous sketch, "Who's on first?" might have turned out something like this:

COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT

ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking about buying a computer.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.
ABBOTT: Your computer?
COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou.
ABBOTT: What about Windows?
COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?
ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with Windows?
COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look at the windows?
ABBOTT: Wallpaper.
COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.
ABBOTT: Software for Windows?
COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals, track expenses and run my business. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?
ABBOTT: I just did.
COSTELLO: You just did what?
ABBOTT: Recommend something.
COSTELLO: You recommended something?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: For my office?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!
ABBOTT: I recommend Office with Windows.
COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows! OK, let's just say I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need?
ABBOTT: Word.
COSTELLO: What word?
ABBOTT: Word in Office.
COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.
ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.
COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?
ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue "W".
COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with some straight answers. OK, forget that. Can I watch movies on the Internet?
ABBOTT: Yes, you want Real One.
COSTELLO: Maybe a real one, maybe a cartoon. What I watch is none of your business. Just tell me what I need!
ABBOTT: Real One.
COSTELLO: If it's a long movie, I also want to watch reels 2, 3 and 4. Can I watch them?
ABBOTT: Of course.
COSTELLO: Great! With what?
ABBOTT: Real One.
COSTELLO: OK, I'm at my computer and I want to watch a movie. What do I do?
ABBOTT: You click the blue "1".
COSTELLO: I click the blue one what?
ABBOTT: The blue "1".
COSTELLO: Is that different from the blue w?
ABBOTT: The blue "1" is Real One and the blue "W" is Word.
COSTELLO: What word?
ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.
COSTELLO: But there are three words in "office for windows"!
ABBOTT: No, just one. But it's the most popular Word in the world.
COSTELLO: It is?
ABBOTT: Yes, but to be fair, there aren't many other Words left. It pretty much wiped out all the other Words out there.
COSTELLO: And that word is real one?
ABBOTT: Real One has nothing to do with Word. Real One isn't even part of Office.
COSTELLO: STOP! Don't start that again. What about financial bookkeeping? You have anything I can track my money with?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?
ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.
COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?
ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.
COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?
ABBOTT: One copy.
COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?
ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy Money.
COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?
ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!

(A few days later)

ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?
ABBOTT: Click on "START".......

Monday, January 18, 2010

Haiti; a Case Study of International Oppression





Why does the Son of the "New World Order" Bush Doctor grin like a Chesire Cat at the thought of "massive human suffering"? Why did he have the Democratically Elected President of Haiti exiled to Africa in 2004?? Why have International Banksters, and a host of former US Presidents historically conspired to deforest Haiti, and keep it the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere???


High Tech Log Jam: Millions pledged for Haitian Relief via text to cell phone providers are not being released to aid initial recovery efforts until next months cell phone bills are paid!!! How many more will perish due to lack of water, medicine, adequate shelter and food in the meantime?

You can take away our phones and you can take away our keys, but you can NOT take away our dreams!

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day and a day off for many.

It seems to me that it's one of the few "day off" American holidays that receives no recognition from the church. Should the church recognize it?

I would suggest that more than a man, the American holiday recognizes the efforts and dream of one man, a dream that should be shared by all, a dream the church should labor to help make a reality.


What should be the role of the church with regard to issues related to ethnic diversity and harmony?

Should the seminaries do more in this regard?

Personally, I hate that the more "liberal" theologically have smoked us more conservative types in promoting the truth that our membership in the body of Christ transcends all other ties.

Because of that truth, our familial relationship should enable us to worship together and love each other, regardless of ethnicity.

Why is that not the case?

I happen to think that the church growth movements and other "helpful" organizations can be a hindrance here.

That is, the encouragement of homogeneity in church, targeting a particular type of people, or training people (perhaps even ignorantly so) to pastor a "white church" or a "black church" or an "ethic church" (whatever that might mean).

As we celebrate as a nation, I wonder why do don't do much (if anything) to celebrate and/or commemorate as a church.

I'm not so much suggesting we celebrate a particular man, but celebrating and contributing toward the dream of desegregation, particularly church desegregation, are under-emphasized ways to glorify God via unity in Christ.

I'd like to see churches get to work on this Not tomorrow, not after breakfast ... NOW!

Saturday, January 16, 2010

House Healthcare & The Bill of Rights

In the two previous posts, there were quotes from retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, a man who has read the entirety of House Bill 3200, regarding what the proposed legislation contained in the Bill passed by the House contains and how three of our original 10 Rights could potentially be destroyed.

Here are two more of those Rigths potentially devastated:

"The 9th Amendment provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

"The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

"This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.

"Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to 'be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.'  If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

"For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us."

Taken from us...

Main Street USA, please wake up!

If the healthcare bill as proposed by either the House or Senate passes (with ample pork that President Obama promised each and every American would never be in legislation that he signs) our Rights are lost.

Our Privacy is lost.

This is the ultimate in political corruption...far worse than just accepting bribes. Those voting in favor of this legislation on Capitol Hill are committing Treason at the highest level.

If it passes, America as you know it (or have known it) will simply cease to exist.

Is it any wonder why there are Democratic Senators who have decided to retire.

Why should they worry about another election and the possibility of losing when America finds out that the country has been sold down the river.

They have a VERY cushy retirement (AND benefits!).

Unlike most of us.

Thomas Jefferson said this, "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

Over For Now.

Main Street One

House Healthcare Bill & Your Rights

More from Retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly (who has read, in its entirety, proposed House Bill 3200), regarding the Rights and Privacy of all of Main Street USA:

"I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law, or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

"The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

"The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

"This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital, a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

"If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law."

Time to raise your collective voice, Main Street USA!

Your Rights, as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are in serious jeopardy under House Bill 3200.

Yes, we do need health reform.

But we do not need this Bill or anything resembling this Bill.

Why cannot our elected officials start with Tort Reform? (Probably because attorneys and law firms are huge contributors to campaigns and spend massive amounts of money lobbying Capitol Hill.)

Remember what Patrick Henry says, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Captain, I'm concerned about this vessel. It's taking on water. Why does that concern you? I can't swim.

“Our high calling is to be in the world, not of the world. It is not our being in that world that ruins us, but our suffering the world to be in us: just as ships sink, not by being in the water, but by the water getting into them.”
-Andrew Robert Fausset, A Critical and Expository Commentary on the Book of Judges
I used the above quote/analogyin Sunday's sermon on Judges 2:1-23 at Providence Church.
(click to listen)


It reminds me of the tension where it's easy to retreat from the world, so it doesn't "stain" you (cf. James 1:27), but then again you also have no impact on it. Likewise, it's not that hard to be in the world, to learn of it and become acclimated and assimilated. Yet, it is quite hard to be in it and not of it, rather making a positive influence on it.

Or, keeping with the analogy, ships are safe in the harbor, but that's not what ships are made for.

House Healthcare Bill and Truth

Retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly has read, in its entirety, proposed House Bill 3200.

I doubt any of our elected officials can boast of doing the same.

Here is one interesting point that Mr. Connelly discovered when comparing the Bill with what is being said and the Truth:

"To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

"The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government."

Mr. Connelly says more, however, let Main Street USA dwell on the above.

House Bill 3200 is nothing as presented by those trying to push this healthcare reform through.

Again, why cannot our elected officials, who are supposed to be doing everything in our best interest, do something about Tort Reform?

That alone would lower health and insurance costs.

Think about it.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Monday, January 4, 2010

No, not "show you," show ME the money!

I'm excitied about being in charge of putting money to good use for the Lord's work, but something in that offer caught my eye and REALLY peaked my interest.
"My name is Mariam Turine. I was born in India, I am married to Rev Jeff Turine, Rev pastor of Christian missionary church in Cote d'Ivoire. We were married for 38 years without a child. He died after a Cadiac Arteries Operation.

And Recently, My Doctor told me that I would not last for the next Five months due to my cancer problem (cancer of the lever and stroke). Before my husband died last year there is this sum $5.8 Million Dollars that he deposited with a Private Finance Company here In Ivory Coast."

Hmm. I'm pastoring in the wrong country. India, eh? I'd be hard pressed to deposit $5.8 thousand serving here in Texas.