True State of the Union

America is in trouble, this is not news, but the bigger problem lies in not just Washington but in the state capitols all over the country. Our leaders have forgotten us. Don't fall for their redirect about actually caring and doing things for the American people. We are smart enough to know that bull crap isn't steak even if the chef tells us different. Yet our leaders continuously tell us that what they are doing is what's best for us.

Our system of government is dying if it's not already dead. In party fighting has long been a sad standard for American politics, however, with this new administration the people have been caught in the middle. We are being told bi-monthly that our elected representatives are wasting time on the job and that there is a crisis. And who is the one reporting all of this? Who is the one that choices to air out grievances on nationwide television instead of sit down and actually talk to those whom have a different opinion? Non other than the President of the United States, who's party actually controls Congress. And while Congressional members bad mouthing the president to news organizations is not uncommon, how often did we see any of the previous Presidents bad mouth their own party members when they controlled 2/3rds of the branches of government.

The Republican Party is dead, sorry but it's true. Like a chicken with it's head cut off, the only reason the GOP is still running around thinking that it's got life is because the Democrats can't finish them off. The GOP has run it's course and should consider that, as political ideology, it would serve the American people best by destroying itself and splitting. The infighting between the younger "core" of Republicans like Meghan McCain and those who have been there like minority leader (ironic since it's an old white guy) Mitch McConnell have all but destroyed the party.

The truth is, Republicans like Ms. McCain, Ron Paul and even Rudy Giuliani should start their own party, but are too afraid to because of our make believe idea that we, as a "democracy" only have a two party system and anything more would destroy our government or allow the the "other" party to win. Guess what, they already have and your party has no real viable solution for the 2012 presidential election. Sarah Palin can't be taken seriously as she quits her position, and you have governors caught waist deep in scandal.

The Democrats, as of the election of President Obama looked poised to finish off the Republicans with a death blow not seen in over a hundred years. They really harnessed the untapped power that was the youth vote by presenting Obama as the "voice of a new generation". This young, hip, black man was going to change the old white ways of Washington with "change we can use". And while I understand empires aren't built in a day, it does take one crushing blow to destroy them. President Obama was elected, as were many other Democrats on the basis that they were going to fix the economy, they were going to bring our troops home and that it wasn't going to be "politics as usual" in Washington anymore. President Obama was going to be the next FDR. The problem lies in the fact that the youth movement really is ADD. Obama didn't say he was going to bring our troops back, he made it perfectly clear he was moving the theatre east into Afghanistan. He told us the economy was only going to get worse before it got better, although he did promise that the economic stimulus that he sent out would keep unemployment at 6-8% which as now gone to almost 10% nationwide, with 14 states at or over that margin.

Don't let the markets fool you. Just because there is a gain in trading doesn't mean the economy is doing better. The market is run by used cars sales men who want you to think that the product your buying is in the best shape it's ever been in. Take gas for example. Prices last month kept rising at the pump while the price of crude oil dropped.

President Obama forced through Congress his stimulus package, a package that no member of Congress had read. Now he wants to rush through a Health Care bill. Defenders of the bill, those who want it passed quickly use the argument that this is something they've been talking about for a while. I'm all for the idea of this bill, I even agree that those families who make a million dollars should help pay for those who can't afford it. I do disagree on any and all raising of taxes on the middle class or a taxation on soda. The government already has enough vice taxes as every time they need a dime they head straight for cigarettes or alcohol. Like many of those who oppose the bill, there needs to be some language in there about abortions. My own opinion of abortions doesn't matter since the alternative of back ally abortions is not an option, however with the feeling that many Americans have about abortion, it would be wrong if tax payer money went to abortions under this health care reform.

On the subject of taxing, I believe that the city of Oakland got it right. They have passed a bill that will increase the taxation on legalized marijuana for medical usage. The tax increase from $1.50 per every $1000 to $18 per every $1000 will raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the cash strap city. Even the governator is considering pushing a similar bill that would help raise $1.5 million in revenue on taxes alone, imagine how much it would save tax payers in not prosecuting non-violent marijuana users.

I read an article, I can't remember where or who said it, but someone said that the American people wouldn't stand for it if one day they woke up and the Chinese had military bases on our soil. Well, I say to all of you that they already have. However they are not military bases but in fact are corporations. The Chinese have over a trillion dollars invested in the United States. They have used our economic crisis against us and the government has simply gone along with it because in the grand scheme of life, in a capitalistic society that finds itself in unfamiliar territory, money really does talk. It really is only a matter of time before the Chinese use what they have for their own profit. Like any good investment, China does not want to see America fail, and if and when the United States gets back up on its feet, guess who just funded China's latest crimes against humanity whether it be squashing Catholics, Taiwan, Buddhist, Tibet or any others that oppose them? Yes, the American tax payers.

America, we need to open our eyes to what it is our government is doing. To quote the movie "V for Vendetta": "People should not fear their government, the government should fear its people". We are a democracy where our politicians only do enough to get re-elected. They only care about our feelings and our opinions when it suites them. They would rather listen to lobbyist who represent big corporations or big interest. These are the people, our representatives that are supposed to be OUR lobbyist. Our elected officials, both federal and statewide, work for us, and that is something they need to be reminded of. Maybe its time that we remind them of who their bosses are.

Also, as a side note, coming in August is a special report about the forgotten minorities. With CNN doing a sequel to "Black in America" and President Obama being praised for being the first African American President, we will view the hardships that affects those who have been forgotten, the Native Americans.

Jailbirds...

Lexington's column in this week's Economist focuses on the prison system in America, and how unwieldy it has become. Lexington points out that Senator Webb of Virginia is one of the few politicans with enough guts to take a stand on this issue. And to be honest, it takes guts, as even a tinge of being "soft of crime" has dealt many a crushing blows to American politicians.

Mr Webb also has some powerful forces ranged against him. The prison-industrial complex (which includes private prisons as well as public ones) employs thousands of people and armies of lobbyists. Twenty-six states plus the federal government have passed “three strikes and you’re out” laws which put repeat offenders in prison for life without parole. And the war on drugs has pushed the incarceration business into overdrive. The number of people serving time for drugs has increased from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today, or 55% of the population of federal prisons and 21% of those in state prisons. An astonishing three-quarters of prisoners locked up on drug-related charges are black.

America incarcerates a staggering number of its' citizens (about 1 in 31 adults) and it doesn't seem to get a lot for it. It is true that our crime rates have been lowered over the past twenty five years, but there are lots of underlying questions related to the cost of this decrease. The first, and perhaps biggest, is related to what constitutes crime? There are myriad options in defining crime, but I find it difficult to believe there is any real public policy interest in incarcerating low level drug "criminals." We also love to disenfranchise many of our citizens (disproportionately minorities, btw), as many states don't allow felons to vote... not only when they are in prison, or on parole, but forever. This seems like a very good way to convince someone that society doesn't care about them, or their opinions. Our system also seems to offer very little (in the aggregate) programmatic rehabilitation, as America has a quite high rate of recidivism. This doesn't even consider the huge amounts of cash we spend on the trials, appeals, incaceration and monitoring of those caught up in the system.

I have little doubt that there are a lot of people in the prison system that deserve to be there, and that it is to society's benefit to keep them there. I'm just not as convinced that 1 in 31 adults should be in jail... or that we can afford to continue the staggering growth rate in prison populations.

Legalize it!

Legalizing drugs probably isn't a great solution to America's or the world's problems. But, given all of the issues with the "war on drugs," I have to agree with the Economist in saying that legalization is the least bad alternative.

We spend tons of money trying to stop drugs from getting into our country; spend tons incarcerating our citizens for drug related offenses; enable gangsters and thugs to cut out a nice little slice of unregulated global trade; fail to treat addictions thoroughly due to a lack of funds; push producer countries into fighting a war on drugs in their countries, which leads to political instability -- all of this, and we still have drugs. The fact is that, like it or not, drugs are here and are going to stay. Quoting at length from the above linked leader:

Legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated. Governments would tax and regulate the drug trade, and use the funds raised (and the billions saved on law-enforcement) to educate the public about the risks of drug-taking and to treat addiction. The sale of drugs to minors should remain banned. Different drugs would command different levels of taxation and regulation. This system would be fiddly and imperfect, requiring constant monitoring and hard-to-measure trade-offs. Post-tax prices should be set at a level that would strike a balance between damping down use on the one hand, and discouraging a black market and the desperate acts of theft and prostitution to which addicts now resort to feed their habits.

Selling even this flawed system to people in producer countries, where organised crime is the central political issue, is fairly easy. The tough part comes in the consumer countries, where addiction is the main political battle. Plenty of American parents might accept that legalisation would be the right answer for the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa; they might even see its usefulness in the fight against terrorism. But their immediate fear would be for their own children.

That fear is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.

I think it is time that we step back and realize how illiberal our drug policy is, and reflect on how we can better tailor a drug regime towards reasonable safety and distance ourselves from the unrealizable goal of irradication. (Speaking of illiberal policies, I just posted on the growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Congress, this specifically related to the H-1B visa program).

My Presidential Platform Pt 1

The following post was an email I had sent out February 23rd of this year, and since then the government has decided to listen to 2 of those points. Mere coincidence, sure, why not? And while I may not agree with the way the government is going about #5, its still "coincidence".

1) Legalize marijuana. The government can tax it, sell a 6 pack of joints for 60-100 dollars and make money. Still make it illegal to grow, and illegal to smoke and drive. Like liquor, it can only be smoked in coffee shops (creating jobs) and in your own home. Set the limit to an ounce.

2) Let free first time possession of marijuana offenders. It'll free up space in our prisons, and cost less for taxpayers, and after all, that's who we care about.

3) Guns for Funds. Have people bring in their guns and get money in return. This will take guns off the streets and at no time are we saying you shouldn't have one, we are just saying that if you want money give us your arsenal.

4) No Guns for Kids. After finding out an 11 year old shot his step mom with a child's model shot gun there should be something done. I just think that if we are going to concern ourselves with tobacco marketing towards kids, and whether or not Captain Crunch is trying to make our kids obese, here is an industry which makes weapons for in children sizes. It just reminds me of the old Willy Wonka where Mike TV talks about his Colt 45 and says he has to wait till he's older to get a real one and his dad replies "Not till your 12 son". Maybe if Mr. TV knew that they made it in Mike's size, then he could really have one and then had some fun at the Chocolate Factory.

5) More funds for teachers and police. Lets face it, crime is going to get worse as the economy does. We need to educate more children so they too will realize what exactly a bachelors degree in philosophy or archaeology will get them.