Posts
Barack Obama has made it through his first 100 days in office with a five course meal on his table and the swine flu for after dinner mints. You've got to hand it to the guy, he is busy.
So what have we learned about him these past few months? Well, for starters, the guy has good manners. His manners aren't perfect, but they aren't bad. Bad manners hurt people's feelings. Hurt feelings start fights. Fights start wars. Therefore, it can be said, that bad manners start wars. President Obama seems to be doing everything in his power to keep us from getting into anymore fights. He gets an A for effort.
In the past 100 days the media has pointed out two instances where the President's manners were not flawless and unfortunately both times he was on the world stage. This effectively proves that the man is indeed human, but mistakes cost points. So, he gets a B for execution. (The media, however, gets an F, because pointing out other people's bad manners, is bad manners.)
The question to ask these next 100 days, is can the President keep up the pace?
On the budget, the President gets an F. It isn't balanced. On Guantanomo and the torture scandal, he gets a C. People are divided.
On the pirate rescue he gets an A, after all, he is the commander-in-chief and it was a Navy rescue. On North Korea, however, he gets a C. It's the one area that seemed to lack any real effort on his part.
The G20 summit gets a B. He didn't get everything he wanted, but he is the new kid on the block. Mexico gets a C. Venezuala shouldn't have been reported. All the media proved was that the President was using good manners and they faulted him for it. I think the media deserves a penalty for causing an unnecessary uproar, so let's see 1000 public service announcements on good manners in the next 100 days.
All in all the Presidents report card isn't that bad but it could be better. He gets two A's, two B's, three C's and 1 F which averages out to a B-. Let's hope he gets better at balancing the budget in the next 100 days. The first semester of his freshman year ends August 8th.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Labor
After researching only three of our federal departments, I have come to the conclusion, that the reason our country is a mess, is because our government is organizationally challenged.
First, we have the food stamp program under the Department of Agriculture. The problem with that of course is the fact that nobody applies for food stamps at the Department of Agriculture. Food Stamp applications are handled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Second, we have the National Weather Service under the Department of Commerce, which, in my opinion, belongs under the Department of the Interior. Commerce needs to focus on the economy.
Third, we have the Department of Labor, whose budget is more difficult to follow than the Department of Commerce. Now it's understandable that the Department of Labor would handle things like unemployment and minimum wage and workplace safety, but in fiscal year 2009, their budget included $40 million to combat employer income tax evasion.
No wonder companies get out of paying their taxes. It's not the job of the IRS to go after them, it's the job of the Department of Labor!
The other interesting thing about the budget for the Department of Labor is that it has a whole bunch of job training and grant programs with million dollar budgets, and zero participants. If nobody is participating in these programs, why do we have budgets for them? And what happens to the money that gets budgeted, but obviously doesn't get spent where it's supposed to?
It seems to me, the Department of Labor would be a good place to start making deductions from the federal budget. It doesn't appear that they really need the entire $59 billion we gave them. Besides, one would think that job training programs would belong under the Department of Education. I'm wondering if maybe the Department of Labor's job training programs have no participants because no one that needs them knows they exist.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
First, we have the food stamp program under the Department of Agriculture. The problem with that of course is the fact that nobody applies for food stamps at the Department of Agriculture. Food Stamp applications are handled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Second, we have the National Weather Service under the Department of Commerce, which, in my opinion, belongs under the Department of the Interior. Commerce needs to focus on the economy.
Third, we have the Department of Labor, whose budget is more difficult to follow than the Department of Commerce. Now it's understandable that the Department of Labor would handle things like unemployment and minimum wage and workplace safety, but in fiscal year 2009, their budget included $40 million to combat employer income tax evasion.
No wonder companies get out of paying their taxes. It's not the job of the IRS to go after them, it's the job of the Department of Labor!
The other interesting thing about the budget for the Department of Labor is that it has a whole bunch of job training and grant programs with million dollar budgets, and zero participants. If nobody is participating in these programs, why do we have budgets for them? And what happens to the money that gets budgeted, but obviously doesn't get spent where it's supposed to?
It seems to me, the Department of Labor would be a good place to start making deductions from the federal budget. It doesn't appear that they really need the entire $59 billion we gave them. Besides, one would think that job training programs would belong under the Department of Education. I'm wondering if maybe the Department of Labor's job training programs have no participants because no one that needs them knows they exist.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Privacy
A lot of people have been talking about transparency in government here lately. So one of the things I have been watching these first 100 days is the concept of transparency in government in action and the conclusion I have come to, so far, is that transparency in government seems to prove that there is no constitutional right to privacy.
The right to privacy, at least in this country, has always been an illusion. There is no actual mention of a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. Over the years, some Supreme Court Justices have used certain ammendments to the constitution to infer the right to privacy through an expectation of privacy in cases of doctor/patient confidentiality, lawyer/client privilege, husband/wife relationships and in some cases Alcoholics Anonymous group meetings. But as of yet, individuals have no right to privacy.
Think about it. A constitutional right to privacy would effectively put an end to the papparazzi. One would think, George Clooney would be leading Hollywood to amend the constitution. Celebrities seem to be very vocal about their political beliefs, yet they prefer to complain than support obvious choices. I do hope they actually vote.
Today we see transparency in government at work in the recently released torture memos. I think some of the uproar over these memos is unnecessary. I've known about waterboarding being used at Guantanamo for at least a couple of years now, thanks to the media. I'm sure our enemies have known about it at least as long. If they're going to use that information as propoganda against us, I'm sure they were using it long before now.
What disturbs me in all this discussion of the torture memos is that some people want to go after the people that authorized the use of torture. I wish the President had not flip-flopped on this issue, but stood his ground against doing such a thing.
The last thing our Congress needs to be doing right now, is dealing with the past. We need them to deal with the present. Congressional hearings on who knew what when will not balance the budget.
Congressional hearings on who knew what when will effectively put an end to some people's privacy. If you put an end to their privacy, how long will it take for you to decide to do away with my privacy?
Just because I am an average citizen who enjoys a modicum of privacy, due in large part to the fact that nobody particularly knows or cares who I am, it does not mean that I have a right to that privacy. My privacy can be taken away at any time the media or the government so chooses.
Congressional hearings take up a lot of time and distract our elected officials from getting a lot of other work done. What's done is done. We can't untorture anybody. We are at war. The President of The United States is our elected Commander-in-Chief. He has to make the tough decisions. He had lawyers advising him on the legality of everything our side did to the other side. Now I'm not sure, but I would think that the President of the United States would have the best legal minds in our country as his legal advisors. If they said it was legal, which apparently they did, then I trust they looked at every legal loophole and have the President's back covered. That's their job.
What we did may well be immoral, but it was not illegal. We are at war. The other side isn't worried about what they do to their prisoners of war. They chop off people's heads and televise it. I think we have a way to go before we sink to their level.
I'm in favor of walking away from investigating the torture memos any further. We have a new Commander-in-Chief already. He has different legal advisors I'm sure. So it would seem that every one involved in the upper level management positions, who approved of the enhanced methods of interrogation, no longer have their jobs.
Do we really want to spend our money investigating this any further? I mean, we are the ones, that pay the taxes, that pay the salaries of the congressmen and women who will be conducting the hearings. Do we have money in the budget for that? I wonder which departments budget such hearings would be listed under?
Transparency in government is all well and good, but I would much prefer to have a constitutional right to privacy. Thank you.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
The right to privacy, at least in this country, has always been an illusion. There is no actual mention of a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. Over the years, some Supreme Court Justices have used certain ammendments to the constitution to infer the right to privacy through an expectation of privacy in cases of doctor/patient confidentiality, lawyer/client privilege, husband/wife relationships and in some cases Alcoholics Anonymous group meetings. But as of yet, individuals have no right to privacy.
Think about it. A constitutional right to privacy would effectively put an end to the papparazzi. One would think, George Clooney would be leading Hollywood to amend the constitution. Celebrities seem to be very vocal about their political beliefs, yet they prefer to complain than support obvious choices. I do hope they actually vote.
Today we see transparency in government at work in the recently released torture memos. I think some of the uproar over these memos is unnecessary. I've known about waterboarding being used at Guantanamo for at least a couple of years now, thanks to the media. I'm sure our enemies have known about it at least as long. If they're going to use that information as propoganda against us, I'm sure they were using it long before now.
What disturbs me in all this discussion of the torture memos is that some people want to go after the people that authorized the use of torture. I wish the President had not flip-flopped on this issue, but stood his ground against doing such a thing.
The last thing our Congress needs to be doing right now, is dealing with the past. We need them to deal with the present. Congressional hearings on who knew what when will not balance the budget.
Congressional hearings on who knew what when will effectively put an end to some people's privacy. If you put an end to their privacy, how long will it take for you to decide to do away with my privacy?
Just because I am an average citizen who enjoys a modicum of privacy, due in large part to the fact that nobody particularly knows or cares who I am, it does not mean that I have a right to that privacy. My privacy can be taken away at any time the media or the government so chooses.
Congressional hearings take up a lot of time and distract our elected officials from getting a lot of other work done. What's done is done. We can't untorture anybody. We are at war. The President of The United States is our elected Commander-in-Chief. He has to make the tough decisions. He had lawyers advising him on the legality of everything our side did to the other side. Now I'm not sure, but I would think that the President of the United States would have the best legal minds in our country as his legal advisors. If they said it was legal, which apparently they did, then I trust they looked at every legal loophole and have the President's back covered. That's their job.
What we did may well be immoral, but it was not illegal. We are at war. The other side isn't worried about what they do to their prisoners of war. They chop off people's heads and televise it. I think we have a way to go before we sink to their level.
I'm in favor of walking away from investigating the torture memos any further. We have a new Commander-in-Chief already. He has different legal advisors I'm sure. So it would seem that every one involved in the upper level management positions, who approved of the enhanced methods of interrogation, no longer have their jobs.
Do we really want to spend our money investigating this any further? I mean, we are the ones, that pay the taxes, that pay the salaries of the congressmen and women who will be conducting the hearings. Do we have money in the budget for that? I wonder which departments budget such hearings would be listed under?
Transparency in government is all well and good, but I would much prefer to have a constitutional right to privacy. Thank you.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Commerce
Okay, show of hands. Who here knew that the national weather service is listed under the Department of Commerce? I must say, the budget for the Department of Commerce is not nearly as user friendly as the budget for the Department of Agriculture. I did, however, learn a few things by looking at it.
The Department of Agriculture has a $95 billion budget. The Department of Commerce has an $8.2 billion budget. I guess not all departments are equal.
The Commerce Department has the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which collects about $2 million in fees and doesn't need any more money to operate because if they did they wouldn't have a budget amount of $0 I'm sure.
The Commerce Department is also in charge of the digital t.v. switch, which has a $2 million budget, and the 2010 Census which has $2 billion dollars being spent on it this 2009 fiscal year and the Office of the Inspector General who gets $23 million. It is, however, interesting to note that while the Commerce Department is responsible for U.S. Travel and Tourism, their current budget isn't spending any money in this area. I guess there's no point in promoting travel and tourism when so few have the money to travel. That makes sense.
After looking over the budget for the Commerce Department I came to the conclusion that maybe they don't have a big enough budget. Agriculture gets $95 billion, Commerce gets $8.2 billion. The primary goal of the budget of the Department of Commerce, however, is, " to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship." The Commerce Department is responsible for the economy! I don't know about you, but I'm thinking maybe the budget for the Department of Commerce ought to be at least equal to the budget for food stamps. If the Commerce Department spent more money on entrepreneurship, (helping create paying jobs) then perhaps the food stamp budget would go down. It's just a thought.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=valleyranchlady1" target="_top">
Free Counter
The Department of Agriculture has a $95 billion budget. The Department of Commerce has an $8.2 billion budget. I guess not all departments are equal.
The Commerce Department has the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which collects about $2 million in fees and doesn't need any more money to operate because if they did they wouldn't have a budget amount of $0 I'm sure.
The Commerce Department is also in charge of the digital t.v. switch, which has a $2 million budget, and the 2010 Census which has $2 billion dollars being spent on it this 2009 fiscal year and the Office of the Inspector General who gets $23 million. It is, however, interesting to note that while the Commerce Department is responsible for U.S. Travel and Tourism, their current budget isn't spending any money in this area. I guess there's no point in promoting travel and tourism when so few have the money to travel. That makes sense.
After looking over the budget for the Commerce Department I came to the conclusion that maybe they don't have a big enough budget. Agriculture gets $95 billion, Commerce gets $8.2 billion. The primary goal of the budget of the Department of Commerce, however, is, " to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship." The Commerce Department is responsible for the economy! I don't know about you, but I'm thinking maybe the budget for the Department of Commerce ought to be at least equal to the budget for food stamps. If the Commerce Department spent more money on entrepreneurship, (helping create paying jobs) then perhaps the food stamp budget would go down. It's just a thought.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=valleyranchlady1" target="_top">
Free Counter
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Term Limits
Our founding fathers gave a lot of time and attention to covering as many topics as they thought necessary, when they drafted our constitution. Our President is elected every four years, while Senators and Congressmen are elected either every six years or every two years. The length of the terms were determined before an election ever took place. The number of times the same person was eligible to be elected has only since been determined for the office of President.
Why were the founding fathers so nitpicky about some things, like freedom of speech, and so uninterested in official term limits? Well, 240 years ago, being a politician was not a career choice, but a community service. There was actually a time when the members of Congress were lucky if they got reimbursed for travelling expenses.
My how times have changed. I have heard a lot of people arguing in recent days in favor of term limits for Senators and Congressmen. I haven't heard any politicians supporting the idea though. Of course, they wouldn't. Who in their right mind would support only being able to have their own job for a limited amount of time. I'm fairly certain no President ever suggested limiting his office to two terms in a row.
That suggestion had to come from Congress.
So people, if you're truly in favor of term limits, then individual states are going to have to pass their own laws on the subject. You can't look to the President to support the idea. He has to work with those guys. How likely are they to help him accomplish his agenda if he wants to put an end to their jobs? That would effectively put an end to any hope of bipartisanship during this administration.
I myself am in favor of term limits, but I'm not certain exactly what they should be. Congress has a pretty sweet retirement deal. So how long should they have to work before they're eligible for it? 8 years? 12 years? 20 years like the rest of us?
If we set short term limits, how would we get rid of their retirement benefits? I mean, I always thought retirement was associated with age. Should we only give retirement benefits to those who serve their terms between the ages of 45-65? 52-72?
Until the time we have term limits there's really only two things we can do. We can decide for ourselves what we think the term limits should be and follow that in our voting practices. If you think a Senator should only be in office for twelve years, then go vote against someone who's been a Senator longer than that.
Secondly, we can contact our local legislatures and have them put federal term limits on our state ballots. Most telephone books contain a section of blue pages. Your local representatives should be listed there. Remember to be nice and mind your manners when asking them how to put federal term limits on your state's ballots, so you and your neighbors can vote on them. Term limits might even be an issue that will encourage voter turnout in your area.
We not only have a right to vote, we have the responsibility to vote what we believe.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Why were the founding fathers so nitpicky about some things, like freedom of speech, and so uninterested in official term limits? Well, 240 years ago, being a politician was not a career choice, but a community service. There was actually a time when the members of Congress were lucky if they got reimbursed for travelling expenses.
My how times have changed. I have heard a lot of people arguing in recent days in favor of term limits for Senators and Congressmen. I haven't heard any politicians supporting the idea though. Of course, they wouldn't. Who in their right mind would support only being able to have their own job for a limited amount of time. I'm fairly certain no President ever suggested limiting his office to two terms in a row.
That suggestion had to come from Congress.
So people, if you're truly in favor of term limits, then individual states are going to have to pass their own laws on the subject. You can't look to the President to support the idea. He has to work with those guys. How likely are they to help him accomplish his agenda if he wants to put an end to their jobs? That would effectively put an end to any hope of bipartisanship during this administration.
I myself am in favor of term limits, but I'm not certain exactly what they should be. Congress has a pretty sweet retirement deal. So how long should they have to work before they're eligible for it? 8 years? 12 years? 20 years like the rest of us?
If we set short term limits, how would we get rid of their retirement benefits? I mean, I always thought retirement was associated with age. Should we only give retirement benefits to those who serve their terms between the ages of 45-65? 52-72?
Until the time we have term limits there's really only two things we can do. We can decide for ourselves what we think the term limits should be and follow that in our voting practices. If you think a Senator should only be in office for twelve years, then go vote against someone who's been a Senator longer than that.
Secondly, we can contact our local legislatures and have them put federal term limits on our state ballots. Most telephone books contain a section of blue pages. Your local representatives should be listed there. Remember to be nice and mind your manners when asking them how to put federal term limits on your state's ballots, so you and your neighbors can vote on them. Term limits might even be an issue that will encourage voter turnout in your area.
We not only have a right to vote, we have the responsibility to vote what we believe.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Marijuana
Wow, I never knew April 20th was the official/unofficial Marijuana holiday. There's even a beauty contest in New York to crown, "Ms. High Times." Hippies from the 60's should be proud. Medical marijuana is legal in 12 states. And with all the recent bailouts legalizing and taxing marijuana sales is fast becoming a hot political topic.
Now I know there are those that consider marijuana to be a gateway drug, but I'm not sure legalizing marijuana is going to increase the sales of cocaine from Mexico.
If marijuana is legalized here, then we could grow it here and effectively cut out the need to import it, while still beefing up security along the Mexican border to stop cocaine smuggling. Legalizing one does not necessarily mean we're going to legalize the other.
If we processed marijuana, like tobacco, and packaged it similarly, that would create jobs. People with jobs pay income tax. People who smoke marijuana would pay sales tax. Clearly we aren't going to keep people from smoking marijuana or we would have accomplished that by now. History has proven that the prohibition of something doesn't really work. That doesn't mean we have to legalize everything, it simply means sometimes we're faced with tough decisions and we have bills we need to pay.
If we overhaul the food stamp program and move it to the Department of Health and Human Services, then the Department of Agriculture could manage marijuana growth and distribution. They could keep it from being laced with other drugs.
The legalizing of medical marijuana in 12 states pretty much proves legalizing marijuana is going to be done on a state by state basis. States who have turned down federal money may find taxing marijuana useful. States with double digit unemployment may find creating jobs similar to the tobacco industry useful.
Not to mention what legalizing marijuana would do for our prison system and its overcrowding problems.
Smoking marijuana doesn't make a person a bad citizen any more than having a glass of wine at dinner would make someone a bad citizen, if marijuana were legal. It's the breaking of laws that make people bad citizens. Maybe it's time we changed some of our laws and helped bad citizens be better. None of our citizens are ever going to be perfect. We're all human. We're going to make mistakes. Do we really have to make it so hard for people who prefer smoking to drinking to be good citizens? After all, in my opinion, marijuana is the lesser of the two evils. I've done my time as the battered wife of an alcoholic, but I've never known anyone to get violent smoking marijuana.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Now I know there are those that consider marijuana to be a gateway drug, but I'm not sure legalizing marijuana is going to increase the sales of cocaine from Mexico.
If marijuana is legalized here, then we could grow it here and effectively cut out the need to import it, while still beefing up security along the Mexican border to stop cocaine smuggling. Legalizing one does not necessarily mean we're going to legalize the other.
If we processed marijuana, like tobacco, and packaged it similarly, that would create jobs. People with jobs pay income tax. People who smoke marijuana would pay sales tax. Clearly we aren't going to keep people from smoking marijuana or we would have accomplished that by now. History has proven that the prohibition of something doesn't really work. That doesn't mean we have to legalize everything, it simply means sometimes we're faced with tough decisions and we have bills we need to pay.
If we overhaul the food stamp program and move it to the Department of Health and Human Services, then the Department of Agriculture could manage marijuana growth and distribution. They could keep it from being laced with other drugs.
The legalizing of medical marijuana in 12 states pretty much proves legalizing marijuana is going to be done on a state by state basis. States who have turned down federal money may find taxing marijuana useful. States with double digit unemployment may find creating jobs similar to the tobacco industry useful.
Not to mention what legalizing marijuana would do for our prison system and its overcrowding problems.
Smoking marijuana doesn't make a person a bad citizen any more than having a glass of wine at dinner would make someone a bad citizen, if marijuana were legal. It's the breaking of laws that make people bad citizens. Maybe it's time we changed some of our laws and helped bad citizens be better. None of our citizens are ever going to be perfect. We're all human. We're going to make mistakes. Do we really have to make it so hard for people who prefer smoking to drinking to be good citizens? After all, in my opinion, marijuana is the lesser of the two evils. I've done my time as the battered wife of an alcoholic, but I've never known anyone to get violent smoking marijuana.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Agriculture
The first 100 days of our new administration will end April 30th. It's been relatively easy to keep up with what the President is doing, not so easy to keep up with his cabinet. Researching the Department of Agriculture gave me a headache.
In the first place, the Department of Agriculture has a $95 billion dollar budget for the 2009 fiscal year. $23 billion of which is discretionary funds. The biggest chunk of their budget, according to the pie charts on their website, 63%, goes to nutrition assistance. ($59.85 billion and please feel free to check my math because according to my calculations, their budget doesn't add up.)
Of the $59.85 billion dollars, $6.3 billion goes to WIC, (Good program I wholeheartedly support), $40.2 billion goes to food stamps, (Good program that completely needs overhauled.), and 15.3 billion to child nutrition, which to the best of my research goes to the school lunch programs across the country. The only problem with that is that those three figures total $61.8 billion, which is 65% of the budget.
Okay, I can't exactly blame a new administration for mathematical errors made by the previous administration. If I'm not mistaken, the 2009 fiscal year started in September of 2008, two months before the election.
Now I am all in favor of the WIC program and the school lunch program and I understand why these programs fall under the Department of Agriculture. I even understand why the food stamp program is listed here, although, in my opinion, it shouldn't be.
The food stamp program needs to be overhauled, and turned into the necessities stamp program. Currently, people on food stamps can buy, candy, and soda pop, but they can't buy toilet paper or toothpaste. Congress wants to put a "health" tax on soda pop in an effort to help our country's obesity problem and raise money to help cover the cost of the recent bailouts, which is all well and good, except people on food stamps don't pay tax on what they buy with food stamps. Think about it, food stamps are tax dollars. You can't pay taxes with taxes. That means there will still be a percentage of the population who will be allowed to get fat while spending taxpayers dollars, simply because the system is screwy. It's not their fault. Ask any mother on food stamps which she would rather have the ability to buy, soda pop or diapers, laundry soap or candy, potato chips or cleaning supplies.
I had hoped President Obama would appoint Mitt Romney to overhaul the food stamp program. He is the obvious choice. Mitt Romney knows about "The Bishops Storehouse." Our government might want to check out "The Bishops Storehouse." It's much more in line with what we're trying to do through the food stamp program than what we are actually accomplishing.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
In the first place, the Department of Agriculture has a $95 billion dollar budget for the 2009 fiscal year. $23 billion of which is discretionary funds. The biggest chunk of their budget, according to the pie charts on their website, 63%, goes to nutrition assistance. ($59.85 billion and please feel free to check my math because according to my calculations, their budget doesn't add up.)
Of the $59.85 billion dollars, $6.3 billion goes to WIC, (Good program I wholeheartedly support), $40.2 billion goes to food stamps, (Good program that completely needs overhauled.), and 15.3 billion to child nutrition, which to the best of my research goes to the school lunch programs across the country. The only problem with that is that those three figures total $61.8 billion, which is 65% of the budget.
Okay, I can't exactly blame a new administration for mathematical errors made by the previous administration. If I'm not mistaken, the 2009 fiscal year started in September of 2008, two months before the election.
Now I am all in favor of the WIC program and the school lunch program and I understand why these programs fall under the Department of Agriculture. I even understand why the food stamp program is listed here, although, in my opinion, it shouldn't be.
The food stamp program needs to be overhauled, and turned into the necessities stamp program. Currently, people on food stamps can buy, candy, and soda pop, but they can't buy toilet paper or toothpaste. Congress wants to put a "health" tax on soda pop in an effort to help our country's obesity problem and raise money to help cover the cost of the recent bailouts, which is all well and good, except people on food stamps don't pay tax on what they buy with food stamps. Think about it, food stamps are tax dollars. You can't pay taxes with taxes. That means there will still be a percentage of the population who will be allowed to get fat while spending taxpayers dollars, simply because the system is screwy. It's not their fault. Ask any mother on food stamps which she would rather have the ability to buy, soda pop or diapers, laundry soap or candy, potato chips or cleaning supplies.
I had hoped President Obama would appoint Mitt Romney to overhaul the food stamp program. He is the obvious choice. Mitt Romney knows about "The Bishops Storehouse." Our government might want to check out "The Bishops Storehouse." It's much more in line with what we're trying to do through the food stamp program than what we are actually accomplishing.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Confession
People are funny when it comes to politics. There are those who don't discuss politics because of the inevitable arguments the subject leads to. There are those who will hold the party line like a dog with a bone. And then there are those whose last resort is always a Bible verse.
Having taken theology courses at a private Catholic University I am well aware that one can make the Bible say anything you want it to, although I learned the basics of how to do that as a Baptist in my childhood.
What I didn't learn in my childhood was good manners. Yes, my parents loved me. They worked hard and did the best they could, but my parents could not teach me things they did not know. I in turn had children to whom I passed on the manners that I had, but could not teach them things I did not know.
Until about five years ago I thought I had good manners. At the very least I believed my manners were adequate, and then I checked out some books at the library by Judith Martin. I was shocked to learn just how bad my manners actually were. There was so much I did not know.
When I started to work on changing my bad manners I began to notice just how many people around me also had bad manners. It was like an epidemic. I can say, from experience, that it is difficult to teach yourself good manners. The best you can do is find people who have good manners and hang out with them, so you can practice.
Because I educated myself on the subject of manners, I can see now why there were jobs I didn't get, relationships that didn't work out, trouble I got into unintentionally.
Manners are by definition the social rules of conduct of a culture and they are varied in different parts of the world. Manners are standards by which we are measured. I didn't invent them. They were already established when I got here.
The point is, I didn't learn good manners at home and I wasn't taught good manners at school, so I don't have good manners. I am not the only one. It seems to me, there are a lot of people in the same boat. I'm not here to pass judgment. I'm here to make sure it doesn't happen to my grandchildren.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Having taken theology courses at a private Catholic University I am well aware that one can make the Bible say anything you want it to, although I learned the basics of how to do that as a Baptist in my childhood.
What I didn't learn in my childhood was good manners. Yes, my parents loved me. They worked hard and did the best they could, but my parents could not teach me things they did not know. I in turn had children to whom I passed on the manners that I had, but could not teach them things I did not know.
Until about five years ago I thought I had good manners. At the very least I believed my manners were adequate, and then I checked out some books at the library by Judith Martin. I was shocked to learn just how bad my manners actually were. There was so much I did not know.
When I started to work on changing my bad manners I began to notice just how many people around me also had bad manners. It was like an epidemic. I can say, from experience, that it is difficult to teach yourself good manners. The best you can do is find people who have good manners and hang out with them, so you can practice.
Because I educated myself on the subject of manners, I can see now why there were jobs I didn't get, relationships that didn't work out, trouble I got into unintentionally.
Manners are by definition the social rules of conduct of a culture and they are varied in different parts of the world. Manners are standards by which we are measured. I didn't invent them. They were already established when I got here.
The point is, I didn't learn good manners at home and I wasn't taught good manners at school, so I don't have good manners. I am not the only one. It seems to me, there are a lot of people in the same boat. I'm not here to pass judgment. I'm here to make sure it doesn't happen to my grandchildren.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Budgets
I have to admit, President Obama doesn't just have a full plate, he's working on a five course meal.
Guantanamo, the Auto Industry and Cabinet selections are his appetizers. They're followed by a hearty soup of North Korean missiles, Somalian Pirates and Mexican Drug Wars. His entree is a plate piled high with unemployent, budget, and other assorted economic problems, along with gay marriage and stem cell research. A salad of talks with Cuba, Iran, and Turkey. And for dessert, he has our involvement in two ongoing wars. Condiments are provided by England, France, Germany, Russia and China. And let us not forget, that in the midst of all this, we're going to give money to Haiti.
I think it's time we send Suze Orman to Washington.
As an American, I think it's time I learned more about our nation's budget. I'm not entirely sure that the people I voted into office are accurately representing the budget I'd like to see for our country.
In the first place, I've never heard an exact figure of how much money our federal government is actually collecting. According to Suze Orman, a budget begins with an actual amount of income.
Now some of us believe in tithing and some of us don't, but all good citizens do believe in giving back something, either a financial donation to a charity or volunteer work of some kind. So taking 10% of our federal budget and allocating it for federal charity work is the right thing to do. I'd like to know if giving money to Haiti puts us over the 10% mark or if we have money left to give to other countries.
Spending the rest of our income is a matter of priorities. I think Suze Orman might be helpful with that. She's very good at explaining the difference between a necessity, like housing, and a luxury, like eating out. She's also good at teaching people how to get out of debt and with the recent bailouts, I don't think anybody can deny that we, as a country, are deeply in debt. According to Newt Gingrich, in about two more weeks, we will have spent all the money we are going to collect, for this year.
I'd like to see the news media pay more attention to budgets, federal, state and local. According to Suze Orman, I need to know where all my money is going in order to make an effective budget. We collect taxes and fines and license fees. Where exactly does all that money go? How can an average American see a copy of his or her local, state and federal budgets? How can we tell our representatives where to spend our money if we don't know how much we have and where we're spending it now?
Now I am aware that the federal budget, when printed, could not possibly be delivered to citizens through the U.S. mail. Perhaps Congress could condense it with the help of Suze Orman. If not, then maybe she, or someone else could do a television series that explains the federal budget to the American people. I simply nominate Suze Orman because she has integrity, doesn't owe any back taxes, she isn't in debt. She's trustworthy, as far as I know.
It is the philosophy of this blog, that in order to have a federal budget that is balanced, the American people need to be more involved in getting the job done.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Guantanamo, the Auto Industry and Cabinet selections are his appetizers. They're followed by a hearty soup of North Korean missiles, Somalian Pirates and Mexican Drug Wars. His entree is a plate piled high with unemployent, budget, and other assorted economic problems, along with gay marriage and stem cell research. A salad of talks with Cuba, Iran, and Turkey. And for dessert, he has our involvement in two ongoing wars. Condiments are provided by England, France, Germany, Russia and China. And let us not forget, that in the midst of all this, we're going to give money to Haiti.
I think it's time we send Suze Orman to Washington.
As an American, I think it's time I learned more about our nation's budget. I'm not entirely sure that the people I voted into office are accurately representing the budget I'd like to see for our country.
In the first place, I've never heard an exact figure of how much money our federal government is actually collecting. According to Suze Orman, a budget begins with an actual amount of income.
Now some of us believe in tithing and some of us don't, but all good citizens do believe in giving back something, either a financial donation to a charity or volunteer work of some kind. So taking 10% of our federal budget and allocating it for federal charity work is the right thing to do. I'd like to know if giving money to Haiti puts us over the 10% mark or if we have money left to give to other countries.
Spending the rest of our income is a matter of priorities. I think Suze Orman might be helpful with that. She's very good at explaining the difference between a necessity, like housing, and a luxury, like eating out. She's also good at teaching people how to get out of debt and with the recent bailouts, I don't think anybody can deny that we, as a country, are deeply in debt. According to Newt Gingrich, in about two more weeks, we will have spent all the money we are going to collect, for this year.
I'd like to see the news media pay more attention to budgets, federal, state and local. According to Suze Orman, I need to know where all my money is going in order to make an effective budget. We collect taxes and fines and license fees. Where exactly does all that money go? How can an average American see a copy of his or her local, state and federal budgets? How can we tell our representatives where to spend our money if we don't know how much we have and where we're spending it now?
Now I am aware that the federal budget, when printed, could not possibly be delivered to citizens through the U.S. mail. Perhaps Congress could condense it with the help of Suze Orman. If not, then maybe she, or someone else could do a television series that explains the federal budget to the American people. I simply nominate Suze Orman because she has integrity, doesn't owe any back taxes, she isn't in debt. She's trustworthy, as far as I know.
It is the philosophy of this blog, that in order to have a federal budget that is balanced, the American people need to be more involved in getting the job done.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Manners
I admit I have my critics, who think that things like manners and good citizenship completely miss the point and won't solve many of the problems we have today. To them I say, you're absolutely right. When looking at the big picture, in the grand scheme of things, good manners and good citizenship seem relatively insignificant. You also know, however, that looks can be deceiving.
Jaywalking and littering are relatively insignificant crimes. But statistically speaking, doesn't breaking insignificant laws make it easier to decide in favor of breaking more significant laws? Jaywalking and littering aren't just crimes, they're also bad manners.
There is a link between crime and bad manners. Unfortunately, history has proven that rehabiliting criminals is a lot harder than we thought it would be. Prisons really aren't an effective place to teach good manners. Elementary schools, on the other hand, stand a decent chance of making a difference.
People with good manners make good citizens. Good citizens don't commit crimes. To have a better country, we have to have better citizens. If you don't believe this is true, then take a look around at other governments around the world whose employees are more corrupt than ours are.
The future leaders of our country are going to come from among the citizens we are educating now. Our future bankers, our future teachers, our future scientists, our future doctors, are all going to come from the citizens we are educating now.
Since the 1960's our manners have consistently deteriorated. Did the cost of the Vietnam War include our nations collective self-respect?
I know that as a country, we have a lot of serious problems to solve. We have a lot of decisions to make and a lot of options to choose from. Some of our goals need to be short term and others need to be long term. I am simply putting manners out there as a viable option to solving some of the problems.
It is the philosophy of this blog, that our current situation proves The Department of Education needs to do some serious work on our school curriculums. Manners and Citizenship do need to be taught in elementary schools across this country. Classes on credit need to be taught in junior highs and middle schools. High school dropouts need to know they have a FICO score before they trash it.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=valleyranchlady1" target="_top">
Free Counter
Jaywalking and littering are relatively insignificant crimes. But statistically speaking, doesn't breaking insignificant laws make it easier to decide in favor of breaking more significant laws? Jaywalking and littering aren't just crimes, they're also bad manners.
There is a link between crime and bad manners. Unfortunately, history has proven that rehabiliting criminals is a lot harder than we thought it would be. Prisons really aren't an effective place to teach good manners. Elementary schools, on the other hand, stand a decent chance of making a difference.
People with good manners make good citizens. Good citizens don't commit crimes. To have a better country, we have to have better citizens. If you don't believe this is true, then take a look around at other governments around the world whose employees are more corrupt than ours are.
The future leaders of our country are going to come from among the citizens we are educating now. Our future bankers, our future teachers, our future scientists, our future doctors, are all going to come from the citizens we are educating now.
Since the 1960's our manners have consistently deteriorated. Did the cost of the Vietnam War include our nations collective self-respect?
I know that as a country, we have a lot of serious problems to solve. We have a lot of decisions to make and a lot of options to choose from. Some of our goals need to be short term and others need to be long term. I am simply putting manners out there as a viable option to solving some of the problems.
It is the philosophy of this blog, that our current situation proves The Department of Education needs to do some serious work on our school curriculums. Manners and Citizenship do need to be taught in elementary schools across this country. Classes on credit need to be taught in junior highs and middle schools. High school dropouts need to know they have a FICO score before they trash it.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=valleyranchlady1" target="_top">
Free Counter
Friday, April 3, 2009
Wall Street
I'm not exactly sure who Dow Jones is. I've never seen a picture of him. I do, however, hear his name a lot in regards to the stock market.
If you want to know how things got this bad you have to pay attention to the stock market. Our bankers not only took advantage of us, they took advantage of people in foreign countries. Our problems went global.
The G20 Summit was a good idea. Having a G20 is a good idea. Someone has to negotiate the protection of our form of government. Not everybody likes us.
The stock market, as I see it, is legalized gambling at its' finest. You start with a company. That company decides to expand, but doesn't have the money. They need investors who are willing to give them money. Now this company has been in business for several years. They provide a service that has a lot of potential for growth. They make a good profit. If they had the money to expand they could make an even bigger profit and share it with their stock holders. So the company decides to go public. They go through the process to get listed on The New York Stock Exchange, a.k.a. The Dow Jones.
Selling stock in their company is how the company raises the money they need to do whatever it is they want to do. People who buy the stock become shareholders in the company. If and when the company continues to grow and make a profit the stock will go up in value. A shareholder can sell his stock at any time the value of the stock goes up or down. The length of the investment and the amount of profit or loss you make determines what kind of investor you are.
I have to say, that for people like me, who knew relatively little about the stock market before it collapsed, the best place to learn about the stock market and whether or not you'd make a good investor is wallstreetsurvivor.com.
Before I put any of my own money into the stock market I want to know if I really need someone else to tell me which stocks to buy. Some stocks are relatively cheap these days, like General Motors for instance. A person can buy as little as $10 worth of stock at a time online and invest in their future, which is also the future of our country. We are all connected by citizenship.
While it is true that some people lost a lot of money on bad investments in the stock market that is only because they put a lot of money into it. Rule #1 in gambling, is never bet more than you can afford to lose.
President Obama has encouraged people who can afford it to begin investing in the stock market again. Maybe when I have $10 I can afford to lose I'll take him up on it. The stock market is more expensive than a lottery ticket, but less expensive than a trip to Vegas. Unless you're a day trader, however, the stock market isn't a place you're going to get a whole lot of instant gratification. Wise investors only put money in the stock market that they can afford to leave there for a minimum of five years.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
If you want to know how things got this bad you have to pay attention to the stock market. Our bankers not only took advantage of us, they took advantage of people in foreign countries. Our problems went global.
The G20 Summit was a good idea. Having a G20 is a good idea. Someone has to negotiate the protection of our form of government. Not everybody likes us.
The stock market, as I see it, is legalized gambling at its' finest. You start with a company. That company decides to expand, but doesn't have the money. They need investors who are willing to give them money. Now this company has been in business for several years. They provide a service that has a lot of potential for growth. They make a good profit. If they had the money to expand they could make an even bigger profit and share it with their stock holders. So the company decides to go public. They go through the process to get listed on The New York Stock Exchange, a.k.a. The Dow Jones.
Selling stock in their company is how the company raises the money they need to do whatever it is they want to do. People who buy the stock become shareholders in the company. If and when the company continues to grow and make a profit the stock will go up in value. A shareholder can sell his stock at any time the value of the stock goes up or down. The length of the investment and the amount of profit or loss you make determines what kind of investor you are.
I have to say, that for people like me, who knew relatively little about the stock market before it collapsed, the best place to learn about the stock market and whether or not you'd make a good investor is wallstreetsurvivor.com.
Before I put any of my own money into the stock market I want to know if I really need someone else to tell me which stocks to buy. Some stocks are relatively cheap these days, like General Motors for instance. A person can buy as little as $10 worth of stock at a time online and invest in their future, which is also the future of our country. We are all connected by citizenship.
While it is true that some people lost a lot of money on bad investments in the stock market that is only because they put a lot of money into it. Rule #1 in gambling, is never bet more than you can afford to lose.
President Obama has encouraged people who can afford it to begin investing in the stock market again. Maybe when I have $10 I can afford to lose I'll take him up on it. The stock market is more expensive than a lottery ticket, but less expensive than a trip to Vegas. Unless you're a day trader, however, the stock market isn't a place you're going to get a whole lot of instant gratification. Wise investors only put money in the stock market that they can afford to leave there for a minimum of five years.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
