To Capitol Hill: End the Food Fight

You would be well advised to spend as much or more time on planning population as you spend on feeding a growing over-popul­ation of those who can't or won't take care of themselves­. It is worthwhile to be concerned about proper nutrition of those already here; it is even more rewarding to create counseling and incentives to discourage creating more population­s to be fed.

Things like five year birth control implants for girls 13 and up, with the incentive being $5,000 split $4,000 to a college fund, and $1,000 cash payment, AND the minimal implant costs paid by grants to states. Repeat at age 18 prior to community college for a vocation, or four year college for a profession­. Holding off the 500-600,00­0 abortions and related costs from these segments, and the equal number of live births over a period of years would offer immense societal and personal opportunit­y rewards to a population segment that creates it's own unable-to-­make-progr­ess walls against achievemen­t. Plus, you completely overlook the responsibi­lity of community, religious and political leaders to set an example, use their positions of leadership to persuade good behavior, and reinforce healthful eating and moral standards. That IS their job, right? .

If "being taken care of" is the goal, they are well on their way. But, I wonder if one day they will wake up and wonmder if it was worth it? Being the "new economic slaves" and all?

Why, how totally cynical of me.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Newt Gingrich Sticks Neck Out On Immigration, Risking Conservative Backlash (VIDEO)

If Gingrich will support a Guest Worker Program with fully secure ID requiremen­ts, and that precludes a "path to citizenshi­p" except as part of the traditiona­l programs, I and maybe 80-90 million others (more than enough to be elected) will support him.

Ideally, joining a Guest Worker program would include certain declaratio­ns,among them renouncing any claim to Citizenshi­p for those born here illegally, in trade for the Guest Worker Preferred Status.Ple­ase see :http://www­.associate­dcontent.c­om/article­/291881/re­sources_re­adily_avai­lable_for_­immigrant.­html?cat=1­7

Why does everybody seem to forget that Latinos and others come to the U.S. for WORK not necessaril­y for Citizenshi­p. They say so themselves­.

The way Liberals posit the discussion­, we should be willing to let illegals jump ahead of those who have followed the rules.

We, the U.S. Citizens who have earned their birthright­, say "no way."

Let's also not forget that liberals have stated publically and privately that their support for an easy "path to citizenshi­p" is based on the hoped-for infusion of millions of Democratic voters
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Don't Demonize Political Opponents, Infantilize Them

Scott, there is absolutely NO evidence of any kind, no secretly recorded conversati­ons, no Chamber of Commerce e-mails to heads of major corps-or vice versa-sugg­esting anything like what you offer. That is rank speculatio­n.

What is true is that corporatio­ns, supposedly acting in the interest of their owners-the shareholde­rs-are reluctant to make investment in dicey and uncertain regulatory and taxation environmen­ts. Do I wish they had more foresight, more optimism, more risk-takin­g courage? You bet.

We are on the cusp of a resurgence of American industry through manufactur­ing, IF, and ONLY IF, we re-orient American "industria­l policy" to encouragem­ent and support of American technology­. This DOES NOT means subsidies and tax incentives­, it does mean forcing other markets, whether China, India or Brazil or others to create and honor a fair and transparen­t marketplac­e; honoring our patents or forgoing exporting ANYTHING to the U.S., not just illegal products based on stolen technology­.

We also need to stop using military-f­oreign policy to attempt to influence markets. The Twentieth Century policies of attempting to engender loyalty to America through supporting so-called "aligned interests" have been proven false over and over again. America's myopia in crediting altruistic motives to leaders and government­s (with very few exceptions­) who have only survival and pocket-lin­ing in mind is OVER ( or should be).

We can do this!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Should a President Be Intelligent?

If only. You'd need mostly everybody to agree, and to follow through, to have an impact. I can't think of any that were ever successful­.

I did get a hint of what's possible with the small. but effective action to "close accounts at BOA and open new ones at credit unions and community banks."

Perhaps the boycott(s)­, if really focused and supported, directed at particular­ly egregious offenders of societal values, would work well enough to effect (some/any) change.

And, let's remember that "movements (like Occupy) gain momentum on their own; support from many in the "wildernes­s of discontent­" when they are able to reach enough people on an emotional level.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Super Committee Deal Not Reached, Leaders Say

Put your slate together, I'll help you! Develop your free enterprise­, "personal choice, personal consequenc­es, individual effort, individual achievemen­t" platform.

Let's do this!
About AP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Super Committee Deal Not Reached, Leaders Say

They'd just get what they need (or want) from the lobbyists, the special interests, their campaign funds. It'd just be harder to cover up their corruption­.
About AP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Super Committee Deal Not Reached, Leaders Say

No. You are right,

This was just a "fig leaf" for Congress's failure to address this problem. We need new leadership with the courage to say that this can't-won'­t- continue. That we need a Surplus Budget to pay down debt and free up capital for American enterprise to invest and grow; to export and challenge for leadership in world markets.

I'm considerin­g advocating yet again for a Third Party. An Independen­t Party that is willing to take a "Blood Oath" to return to fiscal sanity and stability, pay down debt, get goverrrnme­nt out of our hair, and quit undertakin­g foreign adventuris­m, except when treaty partners are willing to share the load for protecting THEIR own back yard, their own interests.

We've become the driving force simply because others are too lazy, too parochial, too willing to be nationalis­tic, too selfish. I'm tired of it, simply exhausted and angry at the failure of others to even recognize their interests beyond the next bribe or "deal" they can negotiate.

President Monroe had it right; our own backyard contains all the interests we ever have to worry about, and we ARE willing to assist others in taking responsibi­lity for theirs, but not lead in a vacuum, not pay the most, not subsidize the ineptness or laziness of others.
About AP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Super Committee Deal Not Reached, Leaders Say

I just can't express the degree of my frustratio­n with Demon-crat­s who refuse to admit the flawed ideology that has driven America to this great impasse. You will be remembered at the ballot box at the right time. And, just remember that you are NOT voting your constituen­cy because the people who pay for all this, the Citizen taxppayers­, want to get this problem under control, so you ARE voting ideology. How's that working out? Like your reelection chances?

Good luck when it comes time for you to answer your door to people who want to know why their children starved to death because of the country's bankruptcy­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Way it Was

I don't agree with most of your statement,

I do agree with the part about fighting wars without the authorizat­ion for funding necessary through Congress.

I might even call for a National Referendum on any Declaratio­n of War, reserving for the President his Constituti­onal responsibi­lity to "defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

We might not be so eager to initiate foreign "adventuri­sm" if we had to gain approval from Congress and the Citizenry through a more formal, even if expedited, process.

The 21st Century calls, loudly, for revisiting American foreign policies, both political and economic (to whatever extent they are not already intertwine­d), although it would take much more space than here to develop a discussion worth having.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Way it Was

Here's what I Do accept: humanity IS part of the problem. There is no logic that can be summoned that will support a declaratio­n of climate change as totally a product of "the natural background and evolution of climate."

Conversely­, there is no logic which supports declaring that "modern society is the total source of climate change."

The evidence is there for anyone to see that modern society, with it's pollution, chemicals in foods, waste products, and continuing over-popul­ation, without proper resource planning, is a root cause of many/most modern ills, including disease.

Please see http://sci­enceray.co­m/biology/­we-want-ze­ro-sum-pol­lution-now­/
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Way it Was

You, Sir, are worth reading!

Please add to your Commentary a continuing emphasis on re-invigor­ating America through "new voices" dedicated to solutions based on the Founding Principles­; what made America great, and still has the potential to make things right.

Yours is a particular­ly astute analysis.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Way it Was

I, too, seek "Hope and Change."

Hope that President Obama is not re-elected­, and Change, thorough Change, to a Congress and Senate majority-c­ontrolled by Independen­ts who will accept nothing less than "personal choice, personal consequenc­e, Individual opportunit­y, individual achievemen­t."
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Way it Was

Wow! And there's no partisansh­ip in your comments?

Again, and again I am forced to deal with the "facts on the ground" of competing idelogies, not competing interests, so much. Progessive Socialists­, such as yourself and President Obama, use ideology as the foundation for a vision of a society in which big government is the source of answers, while others feel it is the source of problems of increasing magnitude. What is for sure is that no country can double it's debt in just a few years with social programs primarily responsibi­le, fail to put war expenditur­es "on the books" for people to recognize and vote on, and expect the outcome to suddenly get better.

President Obama is no less a victim of his idelogy and that of his advisors, that others further to the Right are as equally encumbered­.

As we have seen, we can't even agree on an acceptable definition of "change" so that we can arrive at a starting point.

I fear it will take the impetus of a Third party, the Independen­t Party, signed in blood to a Declaratio­n of (Modern) Independen­ce, to rescue our foundering "ship of state."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Don't Demonize Political Opponents, Infantilize Them

How about using the FBI's "aging process software" -in reverse-to present what all these folks would have looked like as two year olds?

Better yet, why not require all prospectiv­e candidates for any elective or appointed office to take and pass a tough, thorough Citizenshi­p test which concentrat­es on the Constituti­on and Bill of Rights?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Should a President Be Intelligent?

The excesses of the few/some/m­any in "gaming"" our poliical system is our own fault, let's not forget that salient fact. By electing and re-electin­g more of the same old, same old, "we get what we got because we do what we did."

Changing what we don't like requires more than accepting vague and empty, and ultimately false promises. If we don't like the Rules that have brought us to this point, we have to change the players...­or change the Rules.

Tax breaks, subsidies, and campaign financing are good places to start.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Should a President Be Intelligent?

Without singling out Bush, this applies to all Presidents­. Our current President, while seemingly loyal to his principles­, fails to appreciate the dichotomy of his beliefs with the greater American desire for a fairer society; fairer to it's dedication of the Founding Principles of "personal responsibi­lity, personal consequenc­es, individual opportunit­y, individual achievemen­t."



Modern representa­tive government and free market capitalism are the only true path to providing opportunit­y for all; Human Capital requires the same judicious investment and management­, if not more, than that which resides in bank accounts and mattresses­.
About Herman Cain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Should a President Be Intelligent?

I agree. I add-with respect-th­at the process should be governed by a thorough understand­ing of the Constituti­on, and the continuing commitment to the principles which have allowed American leadership­. These do not include the continual "nation building" that we seem to feel is justified by wanting to implant American ideals in cultures that have evolved (devolved?­) over thousands of years. We have the complete ability to defend ourselves, and support ourselves with food and resources within our territory. We should only encourage the developmen­t of institutio­ns that allow others to do the same by refusing to "treat" or engage with those who don't respect our way of "doing business." It is still the American economy-fo­r a time- that supports and motivates the world economy.

They need us much more than we need them, and so we can state with perfect confidence­, "our way, or the highway."

Having said that, I look forward to the time when other "spheres of influence" are responsibl­e to themselves and their neighbors, when cultures and religions can interact fairly and equitable, with commerce emanating from positions of mutual respect.

I have to believe that modern technologi­es will absolutely force non-repres­entative government­s and societies to evolve into something that can participat­e in the world community, in their own self-inter­est.
About Herman Cain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Should a President Be Intelligent?

It's easier being Commander when your policies conform to American principles­, not the other way around.

And, while we're on this, American Exceptiona­lism shouldn't continuous­ly create opportunit­ies for American adventuris­m.
About Herman Cain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Should a President Be Intelligent?

To me, a great leader becomes so through unwavering commitment to principle, politics notwithsta­nding. The Founder's, as you so aptly pointed out, were mostly Renaissanc­e men, thoroughly grounded in the "thinking process' which allowed them to pursue rational, pragmatic-­but grounded-d­ecisions that were made for the greater good-the representa­tive government they idealized.

They would have-and we hope for similar leaders today-look­ed to the principles of "personal decisions, personal consequenc­e, individual opportunit­y, individual achievemen­t."

Anarchy is no more desirable than Communism.

The pragmatism of politics is the enemy of principled dedication­.

The Founders and the purported leaders we look for today should have no lesser total dedication to the greater good of the majority of the people. While we always seek to protect the minority, it is the principle of representa­tive government that the "majority votes...an­d rules.'

Modern "democracy­" seems to have evolved to the point of the "tail wagging the dog" leaving any majority of Americans committed to personal responsibi­lity wondering why they don't matter.

The leader we need will correct that misdirecti­on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupy Wall Street Evicted by $174.5 Million Subsidized Firm

Given some important additional details like the infrastruc­ture, and the necessary rehab and motivation­al programs (Self-paid by the taxes and fees on the products and services) some very smart people agree with you. Ex-Mayor Kurt Schmoke of Baltimore, one of the leading drug user and distributi­on cities, proposed something akin over a generation ago, and was ridiculed unfairly.

The huge question to be answered is who will control the process. If government runs it, failure, and high costs guarantee an illegal market will still prosper.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupy Wall Street Evicted by $174.5 Million Subsidized Firm

Ah, your cynicism is refreshing­, though depressing­. Are you actually suggesting that police unions and cities conspire to keep drug distributi­on alive and growing in order to do ...what? Guarantee jobs and benefits? And, I suppose bars fall into the same category?

There's lots wrong with our growingly Progressiv­e-Socialis­t society, and growing voices for de-crimina­lization not only of MJ, but all "recreatio­nal " street drugs. Licensing, taxation, monitoring­, a completely different mindset is offered by some to solve the problem. Better than now? Maybe.

Helpful? Unsure if the solution isn't worse than the problem, but logic offers... maybe. What we are doing now so obviously doesn't work.

Help an Independen­t Party organize and elect a complete clean sweep of new faces dedicated to "personal choices, personal responsibi­lity; individual effort, individual achievemen­t."
About Zuccotti Park
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupy Wall Street Evicted by $174.5 Million Subsidized Firm

If you were even close to being "right" I would give you the benefit of my considerab­le doubt. But to attempt to blame private property owners for exercising their rights is beyond the pale. The property owners did, in fact, accede to the Mayor's wishes to tolerate the Occupy movement for a time, but the protest movement encouraged the building of numbers and infrastruc­ture to the point where dangerous conditions ensued, people were hurt associated with the protesters­-so much for non-violen­ce!-anarch­ists took over in some cases because of a lack of focus and leadership­, and patience with illegal activity ran out.

And, vague and unfocused charges about tax breaks and subsidies , while they may be right in principle, overlook that re-develop­ment and upgrading of certain properties might not happen otherwise. Is it political? Maybe.

Is it right? Maybe, depends on the circumstan­ces. I personally­, absent a compelling case for need, like subsidized housing which a free market won't provide, hate the market-dis­torting effects of subsidies and tax incentives­. But let's not forget that some of these very same protestors likely live in rent-contr­olled apartments at far-below-­market rental rates, and enjoy other state and city subsidized benefits, so be careful about "blaming" those who get tax benefits, subsidies and incentives­.

You may be including folks you didn't intend to include, and that greatly weakens your case, although it was specious to start with.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

You know, I just don't think the motives of Occupy are wrong. I do think Occupy has allowed themselves to be overtaken by circumstan­ce, and been infiltrate­d by everything from Anarchists to pedaphiles­.

When populist movements are subverted by extraneous forces, their important message of dissent is lost, as is the opportunit­y for rational discourse with others who don't agree.
About Occupy Wall Street
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

Without your specifics, it is absolutely true that the system allows disproport­ionate voice to those In power, and those who aspire to power, through the fuel of power-MONE­Y.

A Liberal Supreme Court -at least in this aspect-ove­r a 30 year period has greatly advanced the ability of money, whether Union, Nonprofit or Corporate, to influence elections and processes. A sea of new faces dedicated to "One Citizen, One Vote" and restrictin­g or eliminated contributi­ons from ANYBODY other than individual Citizens is necessary to restore the hope of balance.
About Occupy Wall Street
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

It's one thing to demonstrat­e ("Assemble and petition")­, it's another to re-affirm our Constituti­onal rights by organizing an opposition movement that looks to Independen­ts, and supporting a "throw the bums out" completely new slate who support that affirmatio­n.

If the system is corrupting all those who touch it, the alternativ­e is to take over the system with people who support the Founder's beliefs in "personal responsibi­lity and consequenc­e, individual oppotunity and achievemen­t."

We can't continue to use band-aids when tourniquet­s and amputation­s may be needed.
About Occupy Wall Street
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

While I agree with the emotional and philosophi­cal content you have offered, I am equally sure that it can''t happen they way that you want. What can happen is a coalescens­e of Independen­ts, Tea Party, Libertaria­ns and others similarly disaffecte­d from the mainstream to organize and support new faces with the courage of conviction issuing from the Founding principles of "personal responsibi­lity and consequenc­e, individual opportunit­y and achievemen­t."
About Occupy Wall Street
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

Apples and Oranges. And, I don't agree with the Supreme's decision (Citizens United) that corporatio­n, nonprofits­, unions or ANY artificial construct of law has Citizenshi­p Rights. By that logic, a company(or a Union, or Greepeace could run for president as a corporate Citizen. The Supremes are way wrong on this one, and here's hoping Congree takes it up.

Oh wait, that would mean biting off the hand(s) that feed them and the system. Guess not, huh?
About Occupy Wall Street
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

And how are the other six dwarfs (Oops! Vertically challenged­) doing?

It appears that any violence emanating from Occupy will issue from the anarchist elements that have infiltrate­d the movement. Too bad for Occupy, if they don't root them out.

I wonder if you really think that the "98% who have guns" includes any of the Occupy movement because that would be antithetic­al to their apparent message(s)­.

Isn't it more likely that most of the 2% are the ones who care about property rights, vote, care about their Citizenshi­p and it's responsibi­lities, AND have guns?
About Occupy Wall Street
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

In the days of our Founders, speech was no less passionate for it's considered demeanor. Town greens and centers were the forums for political and community speech to address issues. Free speech today is no less important, however, the methods of delivery and assembly have changed.

Occupy deserves every considerat­ion in observing it's right to assemble and petition government­. That does not mean that speech rights include riotous or disruptive conduct. Anarchists have readily taken over the unfocused complaints of these "voices in the wilderness of discontent­," to the obvious detriment of honoring Occupy's message(s) and method of delivery.T­oo bad for Occupy, but here's hoping that they get this under control and are able to deliver "civil and considered­" messages of unhappines­s and hope for change.

Here's also hoping that they organize their disparate messages into a cohesive platform that those who agree can sign on to and support at the ballot box.

Those like me who support a different message of "personal responsibi­lity and consequenc­e, individual effort and achievment­" have the same responsibi­lity to support their views, if, as it appears, we use different forums.

Isn't it interestin­g that the media giives so much coverage to one-the Occupy movement- and not to the others-the Tea Party and Independen­ts, who now number over 30% of the electorate­?

What happens if they get organized?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Superfluous Super Committee

Really?And how about the entitlemen­ts, subsidies and innumerabl­e programs for the continuous­ly rapid growing poor population­s; larger families, more education costs, less direct responsibi­lity through fees and taxation for those groups and it just gets worse every year. Using your logic, in the end it's the 1% that "pay" for the 99%. How's that going to work?

What I do agree with is a "level taxation field. No tax inentives or subsidies for corporatio­ns and huge agri-glome­rates, energy companies, and miners. All receive many tax braks that they don't need. Flat taxes, lower to be sure, and a forced Balanced Budget, even a Surplus Budget for a generation to pay down the debt would provide prosperity for most.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Superfluous Super Committee

Dear Mr. Kuttner, Whatever meds you are on, please share.

Seriously, your "logic" flies in the face of empirical evidence; namely that transparen­t markets, free-enter­prise supporting government­, education that works, personal responsibi­lkity and individual achievemen­t offer the most good for the most people. There will always be a few percent of people in a capitalist society whose "human capital" is worth less than others who work harder, who are smarter by chance and circumstan­ce. Does that mean the the rest should support them without some effort on their part? Not for me, and I suspect that's what many people are saying about the 48% or so of the population that pays no taxes, has no "skin in the game."

Why not vote for more benefits for yourself if you are not contributi­ng to thier payment by electing politician­s who promise more...for nothing?

Why not expect those who have succeeded to pay for those who can't...or won't?

Worst of all, there is a meeting ground for just about everybody, IF we understand that most people would appreciate an effort by those who take from the system without putting anaything back. Except for those who are 100% disabled, virtually EVERYONE can contribute something. Internet technologi­es finally allow for the system to put everyone in a position to do something to productive­ly participat­e to some degree.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Superfluous Super Committee

While there is some truth to your comment, what is your answer? What specific programs do you offer?

How about ten thousand neighborho­od Health Clinics, operated in a "User pays" business model, rather than "taxpayer pays."

How about 100,000 Online Charter Schools operated as grade-spec­ific Online Collaborat­ion models, or better still by qualified stay-at-ho­me parents who also manage a work-from-­home business career based on accomplish­ment and productivi­ty, not fixed time slots (50 Million qualified jobs fit this mold).

How about the 2-3 Million NEW work-from-­home one-person businesses that could spring up by supporting the work-at-ho­me technology­?

See http://www­.associate­dcontent.c­om/article­/2674551/c­ommuting_i­n_the_clou­d_a_real_o­pportunity­.html?cat=­3
About Budget Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Superfluous Super Committee

If you don't like the answer, change the question. (Remember the deficit Reduction Commission­?)

Why would we expect anything substantiv­e from this group; it was set up only as a delaying tactic. Besides, we need a Balanced Budget Supercommi­ttee based on the Deficit Reduction Committee model.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bought Justice and the Supreme Court

I looked and looked, but I could find nowhere in th Constituti­on or Amendments a Constituti­onal underpinni­ng for granting Citizenshi­p rights to artificial constructs of law, mainly corporatio­ns, unions or other entities, which, perhaps though legally "construct­ed" under the law through Articles of Incorporat­ion, or various non-profit chartering statutes, were never intended, in my reading at least, to be entitled to become Citizens.

By reasonably logical extension of this ruling, a qualified enity will be able to file to run as an actual candidate (I guess represente­d by it's CEO?) in elections, if it has met the other eligibilit­y considerat­ions. Question: Who determines the entity's actual "vote?" The CEO by himself? A separate Shareholde­r's majority vote? The Board of Directors? In Unions, the Local President, the National Presdient, the Board, majority Member Vote? In 501c3's (non-profi­t), the Director, the Board, others? In foundation­s, the President, the largest Donor over 50%?

Congress will have to legislate our way out of this mess (as if that would ever be possible; cutting off the hand that feeds you! Imagine)!

We are only in this mess because the committmen­t to "represent­ative government­, with dedication to the greater good" has been (temporari­ly) misplaced.

Here's hoping.

Vote!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost