The Paralyzing Fear of "Uncertainty"

As Congress struggles with what to do with "tax cuts," the rhetoric is flying faster than those super discount sale items are flying off the shelves at Best Buy on Black Friday.



So, if you are a rich guy, you go back to your playbook and dig out your old favorite, the fear card. You tell a scary fairy tale and paint the picture that what is really wrong with our economy is the fear and "uncertainty" about what will happen next year insofar as taxes are concerned.



The fairy tale myth is that small business owners and large corporations are holding back a tidal wave of capital, ready to light our economy on fire--but only if tax rates stay exactly where they are now. They are ready to make tons of money in their businesses, but only if Congress gives them the tax cuts they want. Otherwise, they will just have to build bigger dams to hold back the reservoir.



Jack is keeping the beans in his pocket and doesn't want to grow that giant beanstalk. He doesn't want to get the gold at the top of the beanstalk because he might have to pay an additional 3% to the government....Really?



The fairy tale is that these titans of industry are completely beside themselves and are worried sick to death (and out of their minds) about the "uncertainty" of what the future holds for their personal bottom lines. We can't hire anyone until this uncertainty goes away.....




You see, there isn't really any uncertainty at all about what happens if nothing is done by Congress before December 31, 2010. Quite simply, the maximum personal income tax rates go up from 36% to 39%. Three percent. That's all. And we have known that for the last 10 years. It hasn't been uncertain at all.




Does this sound like Armageddon? Or, another global financial disaster?



Hardly.



Does this sound like something that couldn't be budgeted for if a business was really ready to unleash the hounds?


By the way, what we are talking about here is the same tax rates that we had when Clinton was President. You remember how bad that was. The economy grew at a record pace and hummed right along just fine (oh, yea, and we stopped running such huge deficits and balanced the budget for a couple of years).



But to hear the never-ending stream of GOP fear-mongers spewing forth on all cable and radio channels, you'd think that the economy is about to fall off a cliff because of this grave "uncertainty."



It's all made up, folks. It's a fairy tale. There is no uncertainty. We know exactly what next year's tax rates will be, unless the President and Congress cave into these fear mongers and want to make them wealthier while we increase the deficit to pay for these additional tax cuts for the top 2%.



Here's another myth. Raising taxes by 3% won't kill the economy or stop businesses from acting in their best interest.



Businesses act in their own self-interest, based upon needs and opportunities. Raising the income taxes of the CEO's of businesses by 3% is not holding back their decisions of whether or not to hire more workers. The businesses who are flush with cash (and who are supposedly holding that avalanche of cash back from the economy until the curtain of uncertainty is lifted) have been profitable in this recession by cutting their workforce and cutting salaries. How do you think they emassed the huge tidal wave of capital that is supposedly going to be unleashed?




Only when demand for services or products exceeds that which they can produce with their current workforce will businesses begin to hire again. It has nothing to do with the 3% myth.



Here is a real truth we cannot ignore.



We cannot afford the additional deficits that will be created by continuing the tax cuts for those whose incomes exceed $250,000. President Obama needs to propose tax cuts for everyone up to the first $250,000 and then we need to start paying down our debt (and certainly not exacerbate it) by raising tax rates by a modest 3% for incomes greater than $250,000. Our debt is killing our country.



The media never reports about the fact that the Bush Tax Cuts were passed under the process known as "reconciliation" with only 51 votes in the Senate. This "reconciliation" process was demonized during the health care debate, but gets absolutely no publicity now when talking about the Bush tax cuts and how they came to pass. The Bush Tax Cuts were required by law to "sunset" (i.e., end) after 10 years because it was known to the Congressional Budget Office that the deficits would be too great to last any longer than 10 years, and therefore it was written into the 10-year law that tax rates would be required to revert to prior rates at the end of that 10 years.



If it was blowing up our economy when this law passed in 2000, and it was known that it had to end after 10 years, then we need to make it stop now, not extend it.



But, hey, if you want to talk about "uncertainty," ask anyone who favors extending the tax cuts for the top 2% how many jobs will be created by extending the tax cuts for the top 2%. You'll find uncertainty raise its ugly head in a heart beat. Remember that these were the same tax rates that have been in place for the last 10 years and we have created less jobs in the last 10 years than in the prior decade before that.



So, please explain to me how anything is going to change, job creation-wise, if the current tax cuts are extended.

When it comes to extending the tax cuts above $250,000, we just have to say "Goodnight Moon...."

Recognize a fairy tale when you see one.

When Marco Rubio Says "Exceptional" Does He Really Mean "Except Me"?

Marco Rubio gives the same stump speech over and over.


Paraphrased, it goes something like this. America is Exceptional. America is better than any other country in the world. We need elected leaders who believe in that Exceptionalism and will adopt policies to promote American Exceptionalism.


In Marco's world, this means Smaller Government (so long as he is in it) and Free Markets, unbridled by government regulations. No taxes, no oversight, no environmental protection, no social safety nets.


Marco certainly talks the talk. The only problem is that Marco doesn't really walk the walk.


During his tenure as Speaker of the House in Florida, Marco sheparded through and promoted (as the Number 1 "Hero" in the Legislature who made it possible) the now infamous $48 Million Dollar lavish "Taj Mahal Courthouse" for the First District Court of Appeal.


Of course, when he is asked about it, Marco denies any involvement. His finger prints are all over the appropriation of the $48 Million Dollar expenditure, but Marco says, blame everyone else in the process EXCEPT MARCO.


When the GOP released its so-called "audit" of the AmEx Card spending spree, there was (for political purposes of not embarrassing Marco and others) no looking back to the spending records during the years that Marco was the Speaker, or any looking back to the years prior to that when he was really spending the party's money to solidify his power. You see, audits are for everyone else EXCEPT MARCO.



When reports surfaced last week about Marco charging $4,000 or more on his GOP issued credit card for new kitchen floors in his Miami home, and Repubicans started rightfully asking why their donations ended up improving Marco's kitchen instead of promoting Republican party candidates, Marco calls those questions "just the same old types of personal political attacks" that are keeping our Country from being Exceptional. I guess the accounting rules only apply to the rest of us, EXCEPT MARCO.



When questions arose as to how it was that Marco's income shot up exponentially after he became elected to the Florida House and was designated as Speaker, and reports ensued about how he garnered side Community College teaching jobs and hospital consulting jobs from recipients of large legislative appropriations, Marco miraculously always gives the "credit" for those appropriations to other Legislators (just as he's now doing with the Taj Mahal Courthouse). Or, even more amazingly, Marco tries to blame those excessive spending bills on Charlie Crist for signing and not vetoing all those stupid, wasteful spending bills that Marco championed and approved as Speaker of the House. You see, if there is criticism of wasteful spending, the blame always belongs to everyone else, EXCEPT MARCO.


I think I understand this EXCEPTIONALISM concept a lot clearer now. When it comes to Marco, it's not really about EXCEPTIONALISM, it's about applying standards to everyone else differently, EXCEPT MARCO.


Marco is a "champion" for "smaller government" (except when Marco is in it and benefitting from it). He's against government-supplied health care (except when he and his family are the recipients). Do you get the picture of how this list of Exceptions grows and grows so long as it benefits Marco in the end?



But, this guy is slick, really slick. And, unfortunately, people are falling for it. Of course, I can understand why--we all want to think that we are Number One. I'm surprised Marco hasn't used the big "We're Number 1 foam finger" in Red White and Blue as his campaign's symbol.


But, simply thinking that we are Exceptional when report after report comparing our country's standing to others around the globe in quality of life issues--health care, mortality, education, jobs, technological advances, and others --all show us slipping, is deceptive. Thinking that we are Exceptional when we are slipping, asks us to ignore the real problems facing our country.


Saying we are "Exceptional" in this context is like saying that Brownie was "doing a heck of a job...." We know it's not true. We have real problems to solve and we need to get our heads out of the clouds (and our noses out of the air), and roll up our sleeves like the Greatest Generation did.


While Marco's TV commercials are Exceptional, and his carefully-crafted messaging is Exceptional, his job performance as Speaker of the House and his personal and public spending track records show that Marco Rubio is anything but Exceptional, unless you count Exceptionally Bad.


For those who believe that Marco Rubio's policies and performance will make YOU (as a member of the middle class) or our Country Exceptional, I've got just one word for you.


DELUSIONAL.


Don't vote for snake oil salesmen who tell you what you want to hear. That goes doubly for you, too, Charlie Crist.

Start questioning what Marco Rubio has done (both in his private life and his public life) and ask him why that is 180 degrees from what his slick fiscal conservative messaging says today. Leopards don't change their spots overnight.

Don't vote to Take Our Country Back(wards). Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist's ideas (and their past "leadership") are more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess.

When Marco (and Charlie) say otherwise, I take Exception to that.

Why I Can't Vote For Charlie Crist

Many life-long Democrats who despise the idea of Marco Rubio becoming a U.S. Senator, and who are reluctant to back Kendrick Meek (solely because they believe Meek cannot beat Rubio) are flirting with the idea of voting for Charlie Crist (solely because they think Crist can beat Rubio).

Republicans are hoping that Democrats fall for that Charlie Crist trap.

Fear of Marco Rubio winning has clouded the thinking of some usually clear-thinking Democratic friends of mine. Heck, it's easy to fall prey to a smooth-talker like Charlie Crist. He's so "charming" when he's in full campaign mode. He always sounds so nice and well-spoken in his professional television ads. Charlie is like smooth jazz. Charlie Crist is "Mr. Smooth Jazz."

I admit to having felt this same fear earlier this summer. I can't stand the thought of our State being represented by Marco Rubio for the next 6 years (or the next 30 years). And so I, too, was ambivalent, for awhile, about whether I might vote for Charlie Crist because I wanted "anybody but Marco" to win, and I was having my thinking clouded by fear. No more. The smoke of the jazz lounge has cleared.

I have been watching Charlie Crist for a long time, and after listening to his smooth, jazzy delivery, and his latest "new releases" I've come to several realizations.


First, Charlie Crist cannot beat Marco Rubio. Charlie's popularity has peaked and is on the downward slide.

Charlie will not receive enough Democratic votes to win, and he does not have enough support from moderate Republicans and independents, either. If he's lucky, Charlie will end up garnering somewhere around 25% of the vote--and that's only if he keeps the support of the Democrats who have been thinking about voting for him. If those Democrats come to the realization that Charlie cannot win, they will abandon him, and if so, Charlie may only receive 15% of the vote.

While Charlie now likes to tout being "an Independent" (since April when he fell so far behind in the GOP race that he had no other personal option), he also recognizes that he has no Get Out The Vote (GOTV) organization behind him. He has no core constituency.

Winning elections requires mobilizing voters to get out and vote. Charlie will never win because he has NO GOTV organization. He not only has no GOTV organization of his own, he has the GOP's Get Out the Vote organization working as much against Crist as they are working against Kendrick Meek. That is a death knell for Charlie. Game over, Charlie.

Charlie is radioactive among most loyal Republicans, and they are energized to vote for Rubio and are exerting a strong amount of peer pressure among fellow Republicans to vote against Crist. He will garner very little GOP vote.

With Crist's star burning out, Democrats are realizing that in order to defeat Rubio, they must vote for Kendrick Meek. He is the only candidate that all Democrats can get behind. And, Democrats are realizing that if they ALL vote for Meek, he can win. Democrats know the importance of this race and are examining Meek's stances on the issues. Kendrick Meek is the only real Democrat in the race. Meek has the core support of the Democratic party and its Get Out The Vote effort. Those core Democrats are never going to vote for Charlie Crist, which is another major reason why Crist's ad-hoc candidacy is doomed.

Nearly a year ago, I wrote an article about Charlie Crist that I just "re-published." I wrote about how Charlie loves to run for office--how he's always running for something--how he loves to raise money to run for office--and how he's always looking ahead to the next office. I complained that it was too bad that Charlie didn't like to run the state of Florida, and I listed numerous examples of things that he had not done as Governor. I noted that he had really been a poor Governor up to that point, and I mentioned how disappointing it was that he had basically quit being Governor 2 years into his term to devote the majority of his time to running for U.S. Senate. I said a year ago that Charlie Crist's performance as Governor had not warranted a promotion to Senator.

That's why I cannot vote for Charlie Crist. He isn't worthy of my vote. I don't know who he is or what he stands for from one moment to the next.

I don't believe that Charlie will "become a Democrat" after the election as I have heard some Democrats say.

Charlie will not say which party he will caucus with in the Senate.

I know which party Kendrick Meek will caucus with in the Senate. I don't have to guess.

If you are a Democrat thinking of voting for Crist and he somehow miraculously wins and then chooses to caucus with the Republicans, how will you feel, then? (It would be like having Ben Nelson or Joe Liberman as your Senator--neither is a Democrat and neither has helped with any progressive issues. In fact, both have been obstructionists.) Kendrick Meek will not be an obstructionist on Democratic issues.

Charlie says he's going to caucus "with the People." Sorry, Charlie, the U.S. Senate doesn't work that way. Hand me a barf bag.

Many Democrats who are considering voting for Charlie have been seduced by his recent vetoes or his recent policy announcements. They think they know Charlie because of his vetoes in the last legislative session. I submit they are being played by Mr. Smooth Jazz.

If Charlie had been leading Rubio in the polls in May and June, he would have never vetoed Senate Bill 6 or the ultra sound bill (for fear of having the GOP leadership turn on him when he needed their support). Come on teachers, you are smarter than that!

Remember when Charlie ran for Governor just 4 short years ago and bragged about being "a Jeb Bush Republican?"

I will never hear those words--"I'm a Jeb Bush Republican" out of Kendrick Meek's mouth. Kendrick Meek led protests and sit-in's at the Capital over some of Jeb Bush's policies.

Remember in 2008 when Charlie endorsed John McCain (and was a finalist to be his running mate)? Remember when he was Chain Gang Charlie? He was as GOP as possible then. I don't think he's changed. I think he's acting. I think he's playing smooth jazz, because he thinks its what Democrats want to hear.

I prefer classic rock. I don't like re-mixes or bad cover songs.

And let's not forget Charlie's deplorable (and many say hypocritical) anti-civil rights record on Gay Lesbian Bi-Sexual and Transgender (GLBT) issues. Do you remember how Charlie was extremely vocal in the 2008 campaign asking Floridians to Vote "Yes" on Amendment 2 to ban gay marriage in Florida? And, throughout his term as Governor--until last week-- he has whole-heartedly supported the ban on gay adoptions, keeping Florida the only state in the nation that bans gay adoptions. Only recently has Charlie announced "new policy positions" on GLBT issues--solely for the purpose of trying to convert core Democrats to believe that he has "changed" now that he is an independent.

Was he for those New Positions when he was a Jeb Bush Republican? Will he be for them if he chooses to caucus with the Republicans? Will he be for them on November 3rd?

Charlie was once firmly aligned with and wanted very badly to be John McCain's Vice Presidential nominee of the Party who chanted "Drill Baby Drill" at their national convention. Now he says he isn't in favor of offshore drilling.

I could go on and on with things that are either inconsistent, hypocritical positions that Charlie has espoused, or I could cite other examples of bills that he hasn't vetoed that were equally as bad as the ones he chose to veto this year only when it was politically expedient for him to veto them.

The bottom line is that I cannot vote for Charlie Crist and I will not be part of the reason why Kendrick Meek can't win.

In fact, if all Democrats vote for Kendrick Meek, he will win. There are more registered Democrats in the state of Florida.

Don't fall into that trap.

The Lying Has Got To Stop

Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was a mistake. It is a failed policy. It must be changed. Now.

Let's take a look under the hood and see why this junker needs to be hauled away to the scrap yard.

Let's start with the lies.

Military service is supposed to be about honor and duty. What part of honor and duty excludes integrity? DADT promotes lying.

If you are one of the estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian members of our military (active duty and reserves), you must live a lie every day, and must check your integrity at the door of the recruitment office, and then continue your lies throughout your service.

What national security purpose does this serve or promote? Of course, there are no national security purposes served by DADT, and in fact, there are reported incidents where a soldier's sexual orientation was used as blackmail to compromise national security.

Those who disagree with my premise that DADT must be repealed often cite the "troop morale" excuse or the mythical "advances in the foxhole" fears as crutches for their homophobia.

Let's look at the real threats posed by keeping this policy in effect.

Denial. No, it's not a river in Egypt, it's the cornerstone of those who want to keep DADT in effect.

To say that this policy must be retained denies existence of the following facts:

1. Our coalition partners fighting with the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their military. Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Israel and Spain are just some of the 25 Countries that allow gays to openly serve. So, as a country, our troops are willing to fight along side gay soldiers as coalition forces, but won't do so with those who have sworn their allegiance to defend the United States? How does that make sense?

2. We have already spent nearly $500 Million Dollars to discharge gay and lesbian soldiers and to train their replacements. We simply wasted this money. The military spends between $22,000 and $43,000 per person to replace those soldiers discharged under DADT. How does that make sense (or should I say "cents")?

3. Government Contractors whom we are paying at much higher cost to perform support services for the military, are hiring DADT discharged soldiers and employing them to perform the same services that they were performing while serving in the military--now, only at a much higher cost to the taxpayers. So, let me see if I understand--- the taxpayers paid to train them, then paid to discharge them, then paid to train their replacements and then paid a contractor to put the discharged soldier back in the theatre at a much higher cost.) This only makes sense to the Contractors.

4. We are not meeting our military recruitment goals annually, and yet we are eliminating qualified candidates from applying for service. Lifting the ban would allow many of the more than 12,000 trained soldiers who have already been discharged to re-enlist. It has been estimated that more than 36,000 applicants are ready to apply for enlistment as soon as the policy is repealed. So, rather than take more qualified applicants, the enlistment standards have been lowered, and we are taking felons now. Does this make sense?

5. We are less safe as a result of the discharge of mission-critical intelligence specialists and Arab linguists who have been discharged under DADT, especially during a time of war. Does this make sense?

6. The unnecessary discharge of trained capable soldiers under DADT has contributed to the necessity of implementing Stop Loss (which prevents soldiers and Marines from exiting the military at the end of their term of service) and has increased the number of multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan where some are on their 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th deployments. Does this make sense?

7. No one being fired upon in combat is thinking about sex, notwithstanding the frequent use of the "F" Word in a hailstorm of bullets. Gay and lesbian soldiers would be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Feared unwanted sexual advances would be punishable under current military law, just the same as the hundreds of heterosexual harassment and assault cases are currently handled in military tribunals.

8. Gays and lesbians aren't trying to recruit straight people to be their partners. Period.

We don't need any more delays. We don't need any slanted survey questions to be analyzed by the Pentagon to know that this is a failed policy which needs to be changed.

Come on Congress, get your spines out of the closet, so to speak, and repeal DADT. NOW.

We can't afford any more of this foolishness.

Put It On The Ballot NOW!

So it looks like we are finally going to have a Special Session of the Florida Legislature more than 90 days after the Gusher in the Gulf punched us in the gut.

And what do we hear from the President of the Senate (Mike Haridopolos) and the Speaker of the House (Dean Cannon)? "We don't need this. The law in Florida already bans drilling in State waters..."

Oh yea? Do you think we don't remember 2009 when the Florida House brought up and passed a bill to allow drilling right off the coast, in state waters, WITHOUT ANY DEBATE OR COMMITTEE HEARINGS?

Only common sense in the Florida Senate in 2009 saved us from this folly. And common sense in the Florida Senate is a fleeting thing (and often a rarity).

Before the BP Disaster struck, the incoming aforementioned leaders of the 2011 Legislature announced that 2011 would be the year that near shore drilling would be pushed through. The House was teed up and ready to go--they already sold us out once--and the incoming Senate President was a Drill Baby Drill proponent. They made no bones about their desire to move this to the top of their agenda and get it passed in 2011.

Only after the Gusher started lapping up on our beaches did Rep. Cannon and Sen. Haridopolos slightly moderate their views.

Now they are opposing the Special Session and are hiding behind the legal fiction that they can't change that law that now protects us. Their sound bite logic is that Floridians don't need a constitutional amendment because the law already prohibits what the Amendment would prohibit.

Of course, that is until the Legislature changes it!

That's why we need a Constitutional Amendment that can't be changed by the Legislature.

They also say that the Special Session will be too expensive. Actually, it's just the opposite--we can't afford to wait for the regular Legislative Session to address all the issues affecting the State because of this environmental disaster. Just ask the Panhandle Counties who are trying to deal with it now.

The voters of Florida need to weigh in and pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban near shore drilling, forever. We now know how devastating this is to jobs and the incomes of Floridians.

Yet, the reluctance of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate to even respond to Charlie Crist's call for a Special Session tells you all you need to know.

This subject is NOT off their agenda.

Remember when the Legislature was beholden to the commercial fishing lobby and a grassroots effort was undertaken to ban gill netting in Florida waters? The results have been tremendous for our juvenile fish stocks which were needlessly killed in gill nets. Commercial fishermen adapted.

We've always lived without drilling near shore. Heck, we won't even have to adapt to any change--just try to ensure some protection for our environment to the extent that we as citizens can.

All of the reasons relied upon by the Florida House in passing their drilling bill in 2009 have been exposed as lies. It's now abundantly clear to everyone that the oil industry doesn't have new, safe technology. They have no contingency plans for clean ups. They are more interested in manipulating the facts to cover up their misdeeds than they are in paying claims and cleaning up the toxic mess.

So, why would we ever want to expand that right off our mangroves and beaches?

So, it's time to tell your Legislators that you want them to put this Amendment on the ballot in November for an up or down vote by Floridians.

Do we ever want drilling rigs within 10 miles of our shores?

And, oh yea, by the way, you can remind your Legislators that there are many more issues for our Legislature to start working on immediately, because it is clear that we are going to have an even more severe budget shortfall from the loss of sales tax revenues as a result of this disaster.

Make some noise. Pay attention to this Special Session. Take note of how all of our elected representatives vote during the Special session and act accordingly to get the right people elected in November who want to protect our natural resources and our jobs.

Breaking News: It's An Information Vacuum....

Can't you just see Jack Nicholson's face and hear him screaming..."You want the truth? You want the truth? ....You can't handle the truth!"



That's the way we have been dealt with from the first hours of the BP disaster. First by BP and then by our Federal Government. This tragedy has magnified the weakness of real journalism in America today. Journalism and news reporting in America today is as broken as the Deep Horizon.



Constricting news budgets, minimal reporting staffs, fewer newspapers and news magazines, and 24-hour cable "news" networks are a sad reflection of where we are today and what we now settle for insofar as news reporting is concerned.



The 24-hour news channels on cable TV are the worst. They never dive into depth on stories, even though they have unlimited time to do so.



Jon Stewart ran a spoof on this and showed all of the cable show hosts cutting off the questioning and using the phrase "We'll have to leave it there...." and then they move on to some other insignificant story just when they were getting to the interesting part of the interview or actually get to the point of the interview where they might actually ask follow-up questions.



Really? We have to leave it there? Time and time again?



Let the manipulation of the masses begin (or should I say, continue).



To prove my point, next time you see "Breaking News" scrolling across the bottom of a cable news show, just change the channel (to all of the other channels within 30 minutes) and you'll see them all covering the same story. It doesn't matter what it is--they all cover the same things and call them "Breaking News."



Meanwhile, there are so many things going on in the world that receive no coverage from the mainstream media in the U.S.


Instead, we get the same talking heads commenting about the same stories. Meanwhile, there are stories that are virtually ignored. How long has it been since you have seen any meaningful reporting from Iraq?



Ever notice how the advertising on TV affects the news coverage? Follow the money from advertisers and then look at the absence of critical reporting on issues pertaining to the advertisers. And this is supposed to be "breaking news?" More like broken news.


And when there are reporters sent to report on a story, we don't hear about how they are being denied access to facts or to the scene of the disaster, because of corporate or government controls.


Have you heard about the No Fly Zone that BP has been able to convince our government to allow? Have you heard that BP has prevented journalists from getting close to the scene of the spill or do fly-overs on planes? It's happening, but you won't hear about it unless you dig deeper for your news sources, because, well, "we'll have to leave it there..."




Why has NOAA known for weeks that the amount of oil being spilled was 100 times greater than what was being reported, yet they weren't allowed to release that information to refute BP's numbers? Please tell me why, Mr. President.



Keeping us in the dark doesn't help. Releasing the information weeks later only makes us wonder why the deception occurred in the first place.

We can handle the truth. We need the truth. I look forward to the day when I don't hear..."we'll have to leave it there" and actually start getting some good reporting. Reporting breeds accountability and more competency because it helps to expose those who need to find some other line of work.


Treat us like adults.

Who Knows How Much This Will Cost?

As BP continues to struggle to cap the leaking oil in the Gulf, one of the first things we learned is that they only have to pay $75 Million of consequential damages (losses affected people will have to their property and businesses) plus the cost of cleanup. This law, of course, was written and passed in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez spill.

After the oil hit the sea, Bill Nelson and others in Congress immediately said that we need to raise the limits of liability for consequential damages (loss of jobs for fishermen, for example) from oil spills from $75 Million to $10 Billion.

Both amounts are woefully inadequate.

Why limit it to $10 Billion when we don't even know the extent of the current disaster?

Maybe Big Oil will operate more safely if they don't have their liability limited.

Take a look at the chart on Page 3P of the May 9, 2010, St. Petersburg Times for a glimpse at the 2009 profits of the oil companies and you'll see that $10 Billion is a drop in one year's bucket of profits. (Exxon $45.2 Billion, BP $21.2 Billion, Shell $26.3 Billion, Chevron $23.9 Billion, Citgo $7.5 Billion....)

Who came up with the $10 Billion Dollar number that Bill Nelson is touting?

Until the Oil Companies can show they can cap the damn leak, we shouldn't even be talking about any caps on their liability. We don't have any idea yet what the extent of the damage from this one leak will be. Is this just another attempt to build in "too big to fail protections" in another form by capping damages?

Are the oil companies ever going to cap their prices that we pay at the pump? Then why should we allow them to act recklessly, without impunity?

Let Senator Nelson know that there should be no caps!

A Love That Runs Deeper Than Those Damn Wells

Many people have wondered why my wife and I have been so angered by even the thought of offshore drilling off the coast of Florida. Even our kids have made comments about our many postings on Facebook, our frantic emails with emergency calls to action, and even our participation in Hands Across the Sand and the second protest demonstration a few weeks go at the Vinoy basin. Others may have thought the same, but were too polite to mention it.


So let me tell you why I feel so strongly about this issue.


You see, long before I met and fell in love with my wife, I fell in love with Florida's natural beauty. I was fortunate to be born here and had the opportunity to grow up along the west coast, first on the beaches of Pinellas County, and then north to Crystal River, which was a magical place in the early 1960's.


I have vivid memories of month-long stays every June on Indian Rocks Beach, playing with my siblings, cousins and friends from early morning to sunset. On full moons, we'd hunt for blue crabs along the shore line using a flashlight, a long-handled crab net, pulling a washtub behind us in which to throw our catch. We'd wear shoes to protect ourselves from stingrays buried in the sand.


It didn't matter that there was no TV at the cottage. We were never bored. Fishing, swimming, making sand castles, collecting shells, catching sand fleas and fiddler crabs for bait. The water and the sand were clean and beautiful. It was always sad to come back to Tampa after a month at the beach.


In 1960, my father and two of his friends invested in a vacation home in Crystal River that the three families shared. Our family would go to Crystal River nearly every third weekend and for several weeks during the summer when we were out of school. We had a couple of small boats that we would use to explore the incredible spring-fed river and the pristine Nature Coast and its crystal clear grass flats in the Gulf which serves as the nursery for most sea life in the Gulf.


It was there that I learned to water ski, scuba dive, discover a love of all sorts of water birds, get my mask knocked off by the tail of a Manatee when I got too close (before any regulations were in effect I might add), catch and clean scallops, and really develop a deep love for fishing and the outdoors.


Crystal River, circa 1960 had crystal clear water, no algae (from excessive fertilizer runoff, like exists today) or aquatic weed problems-- and very few residents. The nuclear power plant had not been constructed. Commercial fisherman (in their unique wooden boats with the outboard motor placed in a cut-through in the bow for running in shallow water) would set blue crab traps and gill net fish in the Gulf and in Salt River. Only a few people were diving in the springs. There was only one dive shop where you could get a scuba tank filled.


The river was wide, and water skiing was allowed nearly everywhere. There weren't any "No Wake" zones, Manatee Protection Areas, speed limits, or jet skis. There were no limits on the number of fish that you could catch and take home to eat, and no regulations on scallops, either.


The river is a seven mile trip to the Gulf of Mexico. At nearly the half-way mark, the river forks. Crystal River is the northern route to the Gulf and Salt River is the more southerly route. Salt River is laden with treacherous oyster bars and is a maze of mangrove islands and sawgrass islands that all look nearly the same. It is extremely easy to get lost or turned around in there. There was a time when I could navigate it well and knew exactly where to go to not destroy the lower end of the outboard motor. Now I don't know where all the oyster bed are, and I'm too reluctant to rely upon my decades' old knowledge out there.


Whether you choose Salt River or Crystal River, the scenery is like stepping back hundreds of years. Thankfully, these are places that man and his dredges and fill dirt have not yet found. For as far as your eyes can see, there are thousands of acres of marsh and sawgrass interspersed with upland areas populated with sabal palms. Every time I make the trip, I know that this part of Florida has remained the same since the Spanish explorers came. I like that. It is what makes me an environmentalist at heart. This is the Florida that stole my heart.


I've already alluded to some of the things that we had in the old days--before any regulations. There were no limits on harvesting fish. It was always "open season" for recreational fishermen and commercial boats. The only question was how big your ice chests were and how long you wanted to clean the fish.


I was always excited to get invited to go King Mackerel fishing with my father and his friends during the bi-annual kingfishing runs (that occur along the West coast when this migratory species makes its way along the coast in search of water in the 68-72 degree range). I vividly remember watching the sun rise while staring at the wake of a big "cabin cruiser" boat as we cruised out of Clearwater Pass early one morning. It was the annual kingfish run and it was going to be a good day. Not too rough. We had plenty of white bait and followed the diving birds to the large pods of bait offshore where there were no less than 100 boats forming circular patterns in the area where the fish had been found. Each of these boats were loaded with anglers and had multiple lines in the water. Everyone was catching lots of fish.


We proceeded to catch a normal day's catch of 200 fish, most of them in the 15 pound range, but several topping 25 pounds. It was the most amazing combination of adrenalin, testosterone and hops and barley that I had ever seen in my 9 years. There were times when all 5 anglers would have a fish on at the same time, dipping over and under each other to keep from crossing lines. As fish would be brought along side, they'd be gaffed and thrown into the cooler, being wary of their razor sharp teeth. The action was non-stop, all day long. When we came back to the dock, the men would clean the fish and I'd try to sell some to tourists or locals looking for fresh fish. Little thought was given to the pressure being put on the fish stocks. We always had fish left over after giving some to friends and neighbors. Our freezer would be packed with the rest.


Guess what, the commercial fisherman were even worse stewards of the resource than the recreational anglers. As a result, the king mackerel fishery nearly died completely by the mid 1970's. However, in 1976, the Federal Government passed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and for the first time set limits on the harvesting of these fish. Today, the fishery of king mackerel has been rejuvenated, but with modest bag limits to protect the fish from man's greed.


Today I open the paper and read the headline from the tragic oil spill: "GLOOM DEEPENS."


Yesterday, my son, said--we'll, I guess you and mom were right about that offshore drilling. I guess it isn't as safe as they claimed it was.


There is no consolation in being right. There is no "I told you so moment" that makes any of this good, in any way. The hundreds of hours that I've spent scalloping on the crystal clear grass flats off of Crystal River and Homosassa may soon be only a memory. The damage to the fragile mangrove island and sawgrass areas that I described above will be irreparable. I've feared that all along. It's why I've been obsessed, some might say.


We have an obligation to preserve this state and to pass it on to future generations in a better condition than we found it. Excessive development that began in the 1960's and has continued unabated ever since, has dug us a huge hole. As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.


The absence of regulation or deregulation of things previously regulated is the issue with environmental protection. For those preaching for less government, this is one area where we have to say--you are wrong--we must insist upon more regulation. I've been there and done it. I've over fished. Now I don't--because it's regulated. It's even worse when the motivation for violating environmental laws is for greed and profit. Time and time again we see a blind eye turned toward regulation, because it will cost too much.


Well, in light of the current disaster, how are the economics looking this week?


That's why we've been speaking out against drilling and will continue to do so. It's about the beauty of this state and about the economics. We are too dependent upon the sales tax revenue from tourism and the jobs that our coasts provide (nearly 950,000 people's jobs in Florida relate to the coast in some way). Fishing is already being curtailed in the Panhandle. Jobs have been impacted and the oil hasn't hit Florida yet.


That's where regulation must come into play, in a big way. This week we learned that BP was not required to have a $500,000 shut off valve on its rig because deregulation of the industry in the US made that possible. In Norway, they make BP spend the money for the valve. We let greed rule and we get a spill of unmatched proportion. We also learned that the oil companies initially lied about whether or not the rig was even leaking, and hoped it could be another non-news event for them. We also learned that BP has had other spills that have not been reported in the news and that they have no competent plans for dealing with a spill of this type.


We didn't regulate fishing in the 1970's and nearly wiped out king mackerel. None of us on the boats would regulate ourselves. Sad, but true.


The citizens of Florida banned gill netting by a constitutional amendment (when the legislature refused to act), and fish stocks around the state are again healthy and growing.


Left alone to his own devices (especially for profit), man will not control himself. Look anywhere there has been no regulation or deregulation. Throw in greed and lots of money, and that's something that we just have to rein in. (Enron and later Wall Street taking us to the brink of financial disaster are other examples of what happens when deregulation and less governmental controls are the mantra.)


Not only do we need to clean up this spill, but we need to require rigid frequent inspections of the thousands of rigs already in the Gulf and ensure that they have working shut off valves. And, unlike the lax regulations of coal mines, we need to shut them down if they violate the laws.


And, mind you, this will be a very tall order, because, mechanical things and salt water don't work well together.


It's just a matter of time before anything on the Gulf fails. Anyone who has owned a boat operated in salt water will testify that performance of that boat is only temporary. We simply must have a much higher regulatory standard for polluting oil wells in the Gulf. It is no surprise that a valve under 5,000 feet of salt water failed to close. Surely we all know this.


So, why are the American people so gullible in believing the oil industry's sound bites that drilling technology is safe? Common sense tells us otherwise.


Today, I'm glad to slow down in Manatee areas because I still grin with amazement whenever one pops his or her head above the water to take a breath, especially the baby that doesn't have prop scars on its back like its mother.


I love the fact that I had to throw back nearly 30 fish last Friday because we had already caught our limit, and that many of the trout that we threw back into the waters of Charlotte Harbor were more breeders of than 20 inches long--a rarity when gill netting was still allowed.


It didn't bother me that we had to throw back the snook that we caught because the season on snook is closed. Record freezes killed a lot of fish this year and we need to help restore the stock before taking more.


I just hope and pray that the oil slick can be harnessed and recovered before it does irreparable damage to the Florida coast that I love so much.


I want to regulate all of this so that we pass this beautiful place on to future generations in a much better condition. It's the very least we can do.


The Iroquois Tribal leaders were much wiser than we are. They said that when making decisions, we should consider the affects of those decisions on the next seven generations.


"Drill Baby Drill," isn't exactly that type of tribal wisdom.


It's past time for green renewable energy. Windmills and solar panels won't pollute our grass flats or kill our fish.


Get angry and make this happen!

Hey, Dems--Don't Be Impulsive With Your Vote

I was perplexed this week to hear several Florida teachers calling into radio shows saying that they are Democrats who are seriously thinking about voting for Charlie Crist in the three-way Senate race because of his "courageous veto of SB 6". They seemed convinced that-- all of a sudden-- Charlie Crist had become a principled advocate for them.

Let's not fool ourselves.

Charlie Crist, is first, foremost--and always--a political chameleon in the worst way--in the "which-way-is-the-wind-blowing-today sense."

Don't be quick to anoint him as a political maverick who somehow now--miraculously-- speaks for you.

Know this--Charlie is always going to do what is best for Charlie, while wrapping it in a big bouquet to make it smell lovely and look appealing.

That's all that Charlie's veto of SB 6 ever was--a purely political decision made by him to do what he felt to be in his best political interest.

Think I'm wrong? Ok. Ask yourself this question.

Do you think Charlie would have vetoed SB 6 if he had been ahead of Rubio in the polls at the time of that veto? Do you think Charlie would have dared jeopardize his lead (and the current ostracizing and expulsion from the Republican party) by voting against the GOP establishment (and with the teachers' union)? No way.

Only after Charlie's popularity dropped in the GOP polls and only after he became a political outcast in the Republican party did he "discover" his newly-found so-called independent streak.

It amazes me that Charlie is being praised so highly for simply doing what he is supposed to do as Governor-- it's part of his job as the head of the third branch of government to veto a really poorly drafted bill (SB 6) that was hurriedly passed without any input or amendments and simply wasn't in an acceptable form to justify its approval. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you remember that just 4 years ago, when Charlie was running for Governor, he labeled himself "a Jeb Bush Republican." Charlie didn't say that because he truly follows all of Jeb's ideology or even because he even likes Jeb--in fact it's now increasingly clear that Charlie and Jeb don't really care much for each other, especially lately.

But, when running for Governor, Charlie simply did the politically expedient thing that would be best for Charlie--he held his nose and embraced all things "Jeb!" just to get votes.

Four years later, he's cozying up to the teachers simply because it's politically expedient again--just to get votes. Ask yourselves where Charlie has been during the last four years in Leading on educational issues? What did he do to advance the interests of teachers-- as an advocate-- when he was still in good stead with the GOP?

The last time I checked, he was in lock step with them while he was popular in his own Party. Charlie supported the Republican-controlled legislature's annual spending cuts for education every year since he has been in office.

Where was Charlie when he had a chance to really support teachers during the last 4 years?

Where was Charlie when it came to fulfilling any of his other campaign promises?

Didn't Charlie promise to make our homeowner's insurance premiums and property taxes drop like a rock? (Psst....Charlie, we wanted our property taxes to drop, not our property values to drop....)

He has flip-flopped on drilling off the coast. Until this week when he had to retreat and rethink his position on offshore drilling because there is a deadly oil slick about to hit the coast, Charlie had supported the GOP lie that "it's necessary and I'm for it because its safer now..."

Charlie has also labeled himself a "Ronald Reagan Republican" and a Disciple of Connie Mack. Now that the "AmEx Money Changers" have thrown Charlie from "the temple," so to speak, has he disavowed these principles?

If Charlie does or does not disavow them, it tells you all that you need to know about why you should not vote for Charlie Crist if you are a Democrat.

If you are a Democrat, what makes you think that Charlie will be a torch carrier for your values in the U.S. Senate? Has he announced that he will caucus with the Democrats? Of course not, that will alienate moderate Republicans. If he won't caucus with the Democrats, why would you vote for him? If he won't tell you now who he will caucus with, why should you trust him? And if he tells you something this week, why should you trust him 6 months from now?

Will Charlie be a Bernie Sanders type of independent or a Joe Liberman type of "independent" in the Senate? I submit that Charlie is a Joe Liberman "independent." They both love John McCain.

Charlie's an independent politician this week because a filing deadline came up this week and he's a career politician and he just has to run. He loves running for office. He has all this campaign money that he's been raising for the last 2 years (instead of really being our Governor) and just doesn't know what else to do other than spend that money on a campaign.

Hey, Floridians let's not fall for Charlie's charade this time. Let's show Charlie how bad the economy really is in Florida. Let's force him to have to look for a new non-elective job in this lousy economy that he's had a hand in creating.

Sorry Charlie! I've been paying attention. Wake up Floridians.....

P.S. As for those who say they are considering voting for Charlie out of fear that otherwise, Marco Rubio will get elected, don't fall for that ploy either. Vote for the Democrat, Kendrick Meek, and Rubio will lose. There are more registered Democratic party voters in Florida.

When In Doubt, Blame The Teachers

It must be the teacher's fault that little Johnnie can't perform better on tests.

Apparently, that is the battle cry of the Florida Legislature with their passage of SB 6. All of a sudden the Florida legislature decided that this (punishing teachers) is the issue to demand "accountability" on. (Heaven forbid that we have reform on Legislators' campaign financing, but I digress....)

When it comes to funding education in Florida, we must have "In Jeb We Trust Reform"--damn the torpedos-type reform, without fact-finding, and with no amendments allowed, ram-it-through "reform." (Hey, and, if they happen to rough up or bust up the Teacher's Union in the process, so much the better.)

But, in the end, don't a handful of elected officials know a helluva lot more about education than thousands of teachers and professional educators? The Legislators certainly think so.

Is it the Teacher's fault that Johnnie's parents let him skip school frequently?

Is it the Teacher's fault that Johnnie has trouble focusing because he is falling asleep in class?

Is it the Teacher's fault that Johnnie is falling asleep in class because his family is now sleeping in a car after losing their home in foreclosure?

Is it the Teacher's fault that Johnnie is distracted because he is living in a shelter with his mother and 2 sisters who had to flee their home and leave all of their belongings behind in the middle of the night to escape an abusive father or boyfriend?

Is it the Teacher's fault that Johnnie doesn't do his math homework because he prefers going baseball practice after school, and his parents encourage him to work harder on his baseball skills than his life skills?

Is it the Teacher's fault that they don't have sufficient funding to do the things in their classroom that will excite children to learn?

Is it the Teacher's fault that the Teacher must use her own funds or beg for donations from others to provide adequate materials and supplies for her classroom?

Is it the Teacher's fault that Johnnie decided on the night before the FCAT to stay up until 4 AM trying to reach the 4th level of his favorite video game?

Is it the Teacher's fault that Johnnie has discovered drugs and alcohol after school and has made new friends that tell him he doesn't need to go to school?

Is it the Teacher's fault that Johnnie is living in his 6th Foster home, while there is a Lesbian couple who both have Master's Degrees in education who are ready, willing and able to adopt Johnnie and provide a stable, supportive home for him, but cannot because Florida is the only state in the nation that prevents gay adoptions?

And yet, this "reform" will hold the Teacher responsible for Johnnie's performance--no matter what else is going on in Johnnie's life.

There is no research to show that SB 6 will improve educational learning in any way. It will, however, launch a cottage industry in test preparing and test grading. (Is Neil Bush still in that business? Just asking.....)

What continually amazes me is that the Florida legislature doesn't ever look to other states with higher national test scores for guidance. When your state is always at the bottom of the nation in educational achievement, and your state has steadily had declining test scores in the ACT and the SAT (when compared to the national average), and that decline has continued each and every year since the FCAT was instituted, you'd think that we'd copy someone else who is doing it much better.

Jeb! brought us the FCAT and a Governor-appointed Educational Commissioner and Governor-appointed State Board of Education (comprised of business leaders supportive of the Governor). He brought us vouchers that the Supreme Court struck down. He has his fingerprints all over SB 6. This law will place more authority in the Governor's appointed friends.

In Jeb We Trust? I don't think his system has worked very well over the last 10 years. If it had, our test scores would be rising. Let's look elsewhere for guidance based upon something that has a proven track record.

Don't take it out on the Teachers. We were all inspired by teachers. They deserve our support.

Write to Governor Crist TODAY and urge him to VETO SB 6! HE MUST ACT BY NEXT FRIDAY OR IT WILL BECOME LAW WITHOUT HIS SIGNATURE.

Our Words Are Dividing Our Nation

Much of the opposition to the new national health insurance law is related to the words used to describe it.

It’s been called “Obamacare” (with all the inferences to the Armageddon, the Anti-Christ and Death Panels) and a “Redistribution of Wealth” by those with political motives to undermine it—or to gain political advantage for the next election.

But, it is important to look closely at the words that are used daily in our political discourse. We need to look a lot deeper for some substance and to see if we can find some areas of agreement for a change.

Let’s start with the phrase “Redistribution of Wealth.” Conservatives like to say that the new health care plan is a Redistribution of Wealth, designed to transform the United States health care system into a socialistic system like they have in European countries.

Isn't every provision in the tax code (including deductions and tax credits) a "re-distribution?"

Words are important in framing opinions. In recent years, words have been carefully phrased as “talking points” to make us more divided, and in some instances more callous.

"Socialism" includes the public library, public schools, police force, military spending, Social Security, Medicare, and other "entitlement programs"--another carefully-crafted phrase.

"Welfare" is always a derogatory term attached to poor people, but not to corporations like AIG. Isn't it "socialism" to give "corporate welfare" to AIG or to Citibank? And, is it "Corporate Welfare" or "Economic Development Incentives" when State and local governments give exemptions from property tax to Walmart to open a new store, but don't give the same incentives to the small business owner who owns the local hardware store?

"Redistribution of wealth" is a think tank talking-point phrase carefully designed to convey the political message that your money is wrongfully being taken away from you (without consideration of the fact that you wouldn't be who you are or that you wouldn't have gotten where you are today without the "socialistic" things mentioned above).

Warren Buffett has said that he is willing to pay taxes on his enormous wealth because he recognizes that he would never have been able to accumulate his wealth anywhere else but in this country that provided all of the things that he couldn't ever provide for himself.

In the context of "redistribution of wealth," the question to be asked philosophically as a country and as a society is--are we going to have any government programs to assist disadvantaged people who are our fellow citizens--even those who are very different than us? (E.g. the elderly, the disabled, and those who may need a safety net.)

We seem to forget history. Before Medicare, the elderly were the largest segment of people in poverty in the country. Do we want to have no health care system available for people who are too old to work?

So, if we agree that is important in our society, let's figure out how to fund it and how to fix the parts that are broken. If we called these "Charitable Programs" instead of "Entitlement Programs" would people start to discuss them differently?

And, are we going to have any programs (like unemployment compensation) that assist people who are hard-working and pay taxes, but get laid off because of a downturn in the business cycle?

And what about the children born to an unwed teenager? As the corollary to the right to life movement, should we provide prenatal care and proper nutrition (for proper brain development) and quality health care as a basic human right until the poor child is old enough to pull herself up by her bootstraps and fend for herself (or join the military to go fight for us--which we never seem to have any objections to paying for)?

Is spending money on foreign military bases and nation building wars more important than spending it back home on the families of our wounded soldier who suffered a debilitating brain injury in Iraq and his wife has to quit her job to take care of him and their 3 kids?

And if we want to end the cycle of welfare dependency, how are we going to create enough jobs here to enable everyone who wants to work to be able to work? Are we going to enact laws that make it "advantageous" for corporations to stop sending jobs overseas? (because it is clear that corporations won't regulate themselves).

There needs to be more of a focus on reinvestment in manufacturing here--for the long term, without the focus on whether or not the company hits their quarterly earnings projections and disappoints Wall Street talking heads and pundits. There needs to be a plan to create employment for the middle class.

I was hopeful that we'd start that process by having something similar to the Apollo Project to pursue alternative forms of energy-- making solar panels and windmills, developing biofuels, (and ending Ethanol subsidies) for starters, but apparently, those are all non-starters because the oil companies control our politicians and we can't seem to agree on what day it is much less anything so bold.

Talk about real trickle-down economics, middle class factory workers spend money on haircuts at the corner barber shop and get pizza and beer at the corner restaurant, and they all spend money at the local stores, and all pay taxes, etc.).

To me, this type of investment in our future is more important than getting a cheaper shirt at Walmart that is made in China, or is more important than eliminating capital gains taxes for personal wealth building as Newt Gingrich proposed this week when I heard him speak in St. Petersburg. (How is the elimination of the capital gains tax going to make the deficit disappear or pay down the national debt?)

I increasingly see more divisiveness and less willingness to discuss these societal questions—because of the words we use.

We are close to the tipping point thanks to: "Think tanks" created only to advance the careers of politicians interested in their own personal political power (who, with more and more frequency seem to pass laws to benefit large corporations); cleaver slogans and divisive language; citizens that seem to be more interested in pop culture than our future; and 24-hour Cable TV shows and talk radio.

It's hard to choose which of these may be the death knell for our cohesiveness as a country. All I know is that it seems to get worse every day.

We need to stop talking in sound bites and need to begin to discuss what we agree upon as core values.

We need to decide soon what kind of country we will have, or whether we will have one at all.

Cut To The Chase. Stop the Rhetoric. It's Time For Answers.

I'm tired of the sound bites from the so-called Conservatives. I'm tired of hearing how tax cuts will solve all problems. We can't pay the interest on our Treasury Bills owned by the Chinese or other foreign governments with tax cuts. The Chinese want cash payments.

I've asked a series of questions below. "Tax cuts" are not an appropriate response to most of the questions asked below. They are designed to require discussions of real solutions.

It's time for the trickle-down economists, free market (i.e., too big to fail) "Conservatives" and their Tea Bag friends to weigh in with some specific answers. Liberals and progressives and blue dogs need to provide new ideas as well.

Feel free to ask your conservative friends for "solutions" instead of name-calling and fear mongering. "No" is not a policy. "No" followed by a tired old talking point sound bite--about smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom-- isn't a sufficient answer for these hard times, either. Changing the subject is not an answer, either.

More importantly, ask everyone applying for the job of our next Senator or Congressperson, their specific answers to the following questions:

1. Are you in favor of cutting or increasing military spending? And whichever answer you pick, please state by what dollar amount you want to either cut or increase the spending annually?

2. Are you in favor of keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? If yes, for how many years? How are you going to pay for that cost without borrowing?

3. Are you for or against increasing the use of private military contractors throughout our military?

4. Are you for or against offshore drilling off the coast of Florida and throughout the Gulf of Mexico?

5. If you are in favor of offshore drilling, are you in favor of controls regarding: (a) who does the drilling and (b) where they will sell the oil?

6. If you are in favor of no regulations on offshore drilling, how can you guarantee that drilling off our coasts will: (a) provide oil to be used in the United States, or (b) reduce the price of gas here, or (c) not endanger our national security?

7. If every oil deposit known to exist in the Gulf of Mexico was available tomorrow to be pumped, do you know for how many days the oil reserves in the Gulf would fulfill the daily demand of the United States' oil consumption? (I'll give you the answer to this one because it is surprising. According to a report recently published by the non-partisan Collins Center For Public Policy, the Answer is that all of the Gulf would only produce enough oil to last 7 days at the rate of current U.S. consumption of 20 million barrels per day.)

8. Are you in favor of keeping Medicare in its present form? If so, how do you propose to fund Medicare for the next 50 years?

9. If you are not in favor of keeping Medicare in its present form, how would you change it and when would your changes go into effect?

10. Are you in favor of keeping Medicaid in its present form? If so, how do you propose to fund Medicaid for the next 50 years?

11. If you are not in favor of keeping Medicaid in its present form, how would you change it and when would your changes go into effect?

12. Are you in favor of keeping Social Security in its present form? If so, how do you propose to fund Social Security for the next 50 years?

13. If you are not in favor of keeping Social Security in its present form, how would you change it and when would your changes go into effect?

14. What programs or areas of the Federal budget would you cut to pay down the National Debt?

15. How quickly would you pay down the national debt?

16. How do you propose to raise additional revenue to pay down the national debt?

17. What freedoms do you believe are being infringed upon by the Federal government, and what do you propose to do to correct that?

18. Regarding the freedoms that you believe are being infringed upon by the Federal government, please list all of those which were enacted since January 20, 2009.

19. How are we going to make health care affordable and keep costs from going up at 10 times the annual rate of inflation (which is what we have been experiencing each year for the last 10 years?)

20. How do you propose to create jobs in America?

21. What financial system reforms are you in favor of ?

22. What renewable sources of energy do you support and how do you suggest that we transition toward use of more renewable sources of energy? What role, if any, should the Federal government play in this transitioning?

There is no more time to rely upon the same old talking points. Don't let them get away with it. Make them answer these questions. Don't let them change the subject.

These problems aren't going away every time they change the subject.

Demand that the media ask these questions daily and in all candidate debates, and then demand answers.

A Lot Can Happen In A Couple of Weeks....

So much has happened within the last couple of weeks since I last blogged, that it's hard to decide which singular topic to discuss. So, in honor of Spring Training, let's touch a few bases...

Texas School Books (The Continued Dumbing Down of America):

I lived in Texas for 3 years. Having experienced Texans first hand, it concerns me deeply that the content of school books for our nation's schools are determined in large part by what a conservative, politicized panel in Texas believes should be contained in our children's books.

Among other very troubling things, they want to take Thomas Jefferson out of the history books. (Read that again.) Seriously.

It's no wonder why many Americans are not smarter than a 5th grader. (I think they'll have to change the name of that TV show when the new Jefferson-less books are printed.)

Leaving out Thomas Jefferson? Really? What, was he too unimportant, or was it that he spent too much time with the French? He didn't do much other than write the Declaration of Independence, act as our country's second Ambassador to France, serve as our first Secretary of State, and our Third President. Plus, he was probably the greatest realtor in U.S. history. They may not realize in Texas that Jefferson brokered that "Louisiana Purchase" that more than doubled the size of the U.S. (and made a part of Texas part of our country). But, I guess the Texas school book advisory committee overlooked that ironic fact. Do you think they decided to leave it out because we bought the property from France?

Leaving Jefferson out of our children's history books, however, leaves room for a few pages about the conservative views of Phyllis Schlafly...seriously. After all, Phyllis has good Texas values-- she was an anti-feminist, she vigorously opposed the United Nations, and was a huge supporter of Pat Buchannon when he ran for President. So I guess that trumps Jefferson's resume.

Remind me again why we needed to water all those Strawberries?

This week it was reported that Hillsborough County strawberry farmers are letting their end of the season crop die on the plants and not be harvested because the prices have dropped so low due to oversupply. The farmers intend to plow them under rather than have them picked. (Really, in this economy with so many people in need of food? How about opening up the fields for U-Pick operations?)

Just a few weeks ago, the farmers told us that they had to run their sprinklers for days on end to keep the strawberries from freezing--so much so that the excessive pumping caused dozens of sinkholes to form all over the Eastern part of Hillsborough County. Neighbors' wells ran dry so they had no water in their homes, and many houses were damaged or rendered completely uninhabitable by these sinkholes. Interstate-4 was closed between Tampa and Orlando to repair sinkholes on the Interstate highway resulting in traffic delays and detours and spending of extraordinary money for road repairs and extra police activity associated with the detours.

We don't have an unlimited supply of potable water and we have a record number of people on food stamps. What a waste, on so many levels.

"It's a Big F$cking Deal..."

The Health Care Bill passed and was signed into law this week. Joe Biden aptly summed up its historic importance with a few choice words. You're right, Joe, it is a BFD. And that was before the death threats to members of Congress began and the frivilous lawsuits were filed to try to get some activist judges to unwind the health care legislation (and before the commencement of "Armageddon").

And, Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Any Worse:

• Unemployment in Florida hits a record high.

• The legislature proposes a bill to "streamline" and "speed up development permitting" and to eliminate environmental review permitting for developments of up to 40 acres (so long as a licensed engineer signs off on the developer's plans). Just what we need, a faster path to more development without environmental oversight--do you think we need more empty houses and empty strip centers? More parking lots and fewer wetlands?

• The legislature proposes a bill to completely gut and dismantle the Public Service Commission as retaliation for the PSC having the nerve to turn down a utility rate increase for the first time in years. (I smell lobbyists and much higher electric bills!)

• The Hillsborough County Commission's tragic comedy of errors continues. If we fire the 3 Musketeers, we have to pay them an outrageous amount for work they won't perform for the county. So, instead, the Commissioners put them on a paid leave of absence so they get paid an outrageous amount (including , for two of them, the raises they gave themselves??) for work they won't perform while they stay home, take a trip, or meet with their lawyers.

• The Florida Retirement Plan Pension System is in the red. Now, I know that Bill McCollum sits as a member of the State Board of Administration that is in charge of overseeing that pension fund, but we need to realize that he's been way too busy filing politically motivated health care suits and holding press conferences to do much overseeing of the nestegg of our teachers, firefighters, state employees, etc.

Read and Ponder.....Then Get Active. There's alot of things to pay attention to and get involved with--we've all got alot of work to do....

Pick an issue that matters to you and get busy.

We Know It's A Big Tent, But Will There Be A Circus Inside?

As "Big Tents" go, the City of Tampa is a fairly large one.

Many diverse people call Tampa "home." People of all ages, cultural backgrounds, political parties, races, and religious beliefs, as well as a large group of non-believers who do not believe in God or an organized religion of any kind all live under this Big Tent as Citizens of Tampa.

Our City government is managed by a City Council and a Mayor. We have tried to tamp down the political rhetoric (and to save money by not having primaries) in City elections by denoting the races for these elective offices as "nonpartisan."

But for some reason, Tampans can't seem to navigate a nonpartisan path toward a clear separation of church and state when it comes to expressions of religious affiliation at our City Council meetings.

I know it has been way too long since civics was taught in our public schools, but certainly we've all heard of the concept of the separation of Church and State? Remember how our country was founded by people who wanted to escape a situtation in which their governments in Europe were telling them what religion they had to follow or what prayers they had to say before meetings? (Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.)

It's long been said that if you want to create acrimony and divisiveness during a dinner conversation, simply bring up either politics or religion. There are just too many vervent views and passionate opinions attached to those subjects, and most people cannot sit idlely by when someone brings up a topic that offends their heart-felt personal opinions on religion or politics.

Nonetheless, in our non-partisan Tampa City Council meetings we begin the meetings with "Let Us Pray" and allow the Clergyperson du jour to say a group prayer for everyone in the tent.

Under this rotating visiting "preacher" policy, "Let Us Pray" really means, follow along with me while I pray out loud the way that I like to pray in my particular religion.

So, unless it's your particular religion's day to have your type of prayer delivered at City Council, you aren't really too happy, are you? Are the Jews in the tent offended when the prayer ends with "...in Jesus' name we pray..?" Or is the Muslim citizen or the Methodist quadriplegic offended by being asked to stand for the prayer? And if you are an atheist, this whole process makes you want to vehemently object to it at every meeting for the 3 minutes you are allowed for your public comment on City issues, until it stops. (Excuse me, but can someone at the dinner table please pass the salt for these wounds?)

Some say this topic is "the third rail" and cannot be touched by any politician for fear of committing political suicide. After all, members of City Council are politicians. They need to be liked. They need votes. They don't want to be labeled as anti-religious.

Our City Council members have been struggling with this prayer at the beginning of meetings issue for many years. The concept of having each Council Member take turns to invite someone to give the Invocation has led us to the current failed policy. And for those who need a history lesson on this issue, you may recall that on July 29, 2004, Michael R. Harvey of the Atheists of Florida was invited by a City Council member to give equal time to the atheists--essentially, to give a non-invocation for the non-believers. Well, that invitation so offended three Council Members (Kevin White, Mary Alvarez, and Rose Ferlita) that they walked out of the meeting and all City Council business had to be cancelled for the day. How can this not be deemed a huge policy failure?

The 2004 walk-out was clearly the "Jump the Shark" (Google it later) moment for our City Council. They should have recognized that this rotating Invocation policy is generally offensive to nearly everyone, on some level, at every meeting, because we are mixing someone's brand of religion with fixing potholes.

Signs that our Big Tent is turning into a Three Ring Circus include the recent dust-ups over the Pledge of Allegiance and the atheists' refusal to say "Under God" as part of the Pledge. They prefer the pre-1954 version of the Pledge that did not contain the words "Under God." In yet another Jump the Shark moment, they were chastized by an Assistant City Attorney and a Council Member for saying the Pledge without the Under God words. (Isn't it ironic that the words that follow "Under God" are "...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?")

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is about last week's episode that is bringing us together or has in any way promoted liberty? Just asking....

So, what's the solution? Try this.

I make a Motion that the City Council no longer have an audible Invocation at the beginning of the City Council Meetings.

If you are on the City Council and you personally feel that you need to begin your day with a prayer in order to be able to bring your "A- Game" to the council chambers, please do whatever you feel is appropriate for you, personally, before you come to the public meeting. Phone your particular clergyperson for inspiration or guidance as necessary. Read from the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, or from any other inspirational text; or perhaps read a whitepaper on the issues you are going to work on in the meeting. In other words, do whatever works for you personally, to help you best prepare for and perform the job you were elected to do.

The same advice goes for those citizens attending the meetings, both believers and non-believers. Let's commit to make these meetings solely about City Issues.

If (and only if) the City Council unwilling to end the failed policy of having each meeting begin with an Invocation, then I make an Alternative Motion: please stop the clergyperson du jour policy and the audible prayer and adopt a Three Minute Moment of Silence instead. (Three minutes is a long time in this context. Most moments of silence in public gatherings are less than one minute.)

Three minutes is the amount of time that is typically allowed to each citizen to address the Council on City issues and, in my view, it would be more than a sufficient amount of time for each person in the tent, in their own way, to either pray silently, or to meditate, or to rehearse silently their speech to the council, or to think about and commit to respecting the rights of others in the Tent, and to make a personal pledge that we are at this particular meeting to try to make our City a better place in which to live.

After all, we only have so much time allotted to solve the problems facing us in our City, and after this 3 minutes of silent reflection ends, we've got a lot of work to do. Why take up time at every meeting arguing about the prayer?

Think of it this way--a 3-minute quiet period of reflection, a cooling off period, followed by everyone in the Big Tent bringing their "A-Game" only on City Business. (Do I hear an Amen?)

It's time for a new policy. It's time to recognize that our Big Tent is leaking all over us in national media stories and is starting to look way too much like a Big Top. Circuses only stay in town a few days. We have to live here together year-round.

Council Members, please remember that the summer rains are soon coming and we have still not solved our street flooding issues. We have an unprecedented budget crisis and necessary City services are being curtailed.

In other words, we've got more important City Business to work on rather than arguing at each meeting about the Invocation. If members of the City Council still think the rotating Invocation policy is a good one, please re-read again the true meaning of what "Let Us Pray" means above...)

Dare I say, we have more problems than we can say Grace over?

It only takes 4 votes. Do I hear a second to my Motions?

WWMC--What Would Marco Charge?

Marco Rubio wants to be the next U.S. Senator from Florida (or should I say the next Senator from American Express)?


You see, on the one hand, Marco is being lauded as "the next great Conservative." On the other hand, the partial release of his credit card expenditures on his Florida GOP American Express Card (while Marco served as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives) demonstrates anything but conservatism.


Marco's questionable spending habits and his comments regarding them give us some insight into his mindset when it comes to public service. He just loves spending other people's money on himself.


Let's explore the snipets revealed in the St. Petersburg Times' article on February 25, 2010.

"I was as diligent as possible to ensure the party did not pay for items that were unrelated to party business," Marco said when questioned about his expenditures of more than $100,000.00 from November 2006-November 2008.

So, let's look at the charges and see what Marco thinks "diligence" is and what he thinks are things that are "related to party business."

$765 at Apple's online store for "computer supplies;" $25.76 from Everglades Lumber for "supplies;" $53.49 at Winn-Dixie for "food;" $68.33 at Happy Wine in Miami for "beverages" and "meal;" $78.10 for two purchases at Farm Stores groceries in suburban Miami; $412 at All Fusion Electronics, a music equipment store in Miami, for "supplies." Plane tickets for Marco's wife. Deductibles on his car insurance and rental car expenses while his personal automobile was in the shop. Payments totalling $1,024 to a Tallahassee property management firm (which Marco admitted were personal expenses, but according to the St. Petersburg Times article, were not repaid to the GOP). Oh yea, and don't forget the reported $7.09 charge at Chick-fil-A.

Really, Marco, Chick-fil-A?

So what can we learn from these things?

Well, for starters, the GOP sure does need alot of different "supplies." And, secondly, if Marco is eating, chances are extremely good that it's "party business."

And as for diligence, let's look at the simple concept of opening one's wallet and looking at more than one credit card inside. Many of us do that daily. Many of us have personal credit cards and business credit cards.

Diligence would be pulling out your own personal credit card for your own personal expenses, and pulling out the other GOP issued credit card for expenses that are used exclusively for influencing elections. (After all, that's what the IRS expects the GOP to do with its donations--use them exclusively for influencing elections).

But, hey, maybe the Clerk at Farm Stores or the gal behind the counter at the Chick-fil-A is more likely to vote for Marco because he walked in or pulled through the drive-through and bought some stuff on the GOP's dime. Ya think?

And, although I've lived in Florida most of my life, I didn't realize that we have a "First Lady of the Florida House of Representatives." But, according to Marco, we do, and he thinks that it is "absolutely appropriate for her to accompany me to official events and party functions." Sure, I understand that--no problem, but at whose expense? Is anyone voting for the First Lady of the Florida House?

Doesn't all of this sound alot like the escapades of Sarah Palin and the First Dude and their interesting expense reports chocked full of charges when she flew her family all over Alaska on "official business" at taxpayer expense?

Of course, the GOP and Bill McCollum say this is all just a private matter. No taxpayer money involved. No need to look under the hood and see how the engine is running or why it is leaking oil. We'll clean up our own mess--move along--nothing to see here.

But that's the lesson here. These free-wheeling Republican spenders are running the State of Florida's fiscal house. They are making all of our budgetary decisions--and have for many years. Republican Party business--and how lavishly they spend money for themselves-- is a mirror of their fiscal habits. Is it any wonder we are in such a mess financially in Florida?

If Marco thinks that everything he does is party-related or business-related, and charges it all to others, what is he going to do if he gets the chance to exercise his diligence in Washington? I think we know. We've already seen his lavish spending in Tallahassee when he was Speaker of the House.

"I'll have a number one, extra pickles, hold the mayo, and 367 B-22 bombers." (Or, perhaps he'll spend alot of money to refurbish his office, just like he spent $400,000 as House Speaker to remodel his office and to build a members' only dining room.)

What? Were the lines at Chick-fil-A too long?

Marco calls these leaks of his AMEX spending "a political act of desperation by his opponent."


It's more than that. Marco doesn't connect that dots.

It may be that by not paying back personal expenses to the GOP, or by paying them back more than 6 months later, that he essentially received income (for the personal expenses he didn't pay back) or interest-free loans (from Republican Party donors for those expenses that he eventually paid back months later).


Think we need to look under the hood a little more before the election?

That's the conservative thing to do.

Fire Up The Nukes! It's Time To Declare War!

Bring on the "Nuclear Option." The so-called Nuclear Option is the process that a Senator will rise on the floor of the U.S. Senate and call into question the unconstitutionality of the Filibuster, and immediately call for a vote to annihilate this arcane rule that is making our Federal Government completely dysfunctional.

The nuclear option, being brought up as a "point of order," would not require a 60-vote margin to pass. It would simply take a majority vote to pass and get rid of this unconstitutional road block. All we need is 51 votes to do this!

It's just a "rule" that 100 people made up. At the time they created it, it was rarely used. Over the years, Senators have changed it before--it used to take 67 votes to overcome a filibuster, now it takes 60. Why not 51?

The Senators can, and must, change it again--because, it is being abused and it has paralyzed our Federal Government. It is time for the Senate to be governed by majority rule. It is time to get things done, and the Filibuster is standing in the way of Everything.

I come to this conclusion because the Filibuster is being abused. It is now used on nearly EVERY piece of legislation that moves into the Senate.

In the 1950's, during each 2-year term of Congress, the Filibuster was only used an average of ONE TIME EVERY 2 YEARS. In the current term of Congress which began on January 1, 2009, the Filibuster has already been invoked MORE THAN 239 TIMES.

Enough!

The filibuster exists only to give power to those 100 people. It does nothing for the rest of us. This rule does not exist in our Constitution.

But wait, it gets worse!

What's even worse that the Filibuster is the Single Senator Hold that is routinely used by ONE Senator to completely hold up appointments of Judges and other Executive Branch appointees who must be confirmed by the Senate.

There is never even a confirmation vote if the One Senator Hold is invoked.

And, as we have seen recently, it is invoked many times solely as a form of political bribery--like Sen. Shelby in Alabama having a hold on 70 appointees simply because he wanted funding to be approved for pork projects in his state.

Questioning the qualifications of appointees is something that can and should be decided in the confirmation process--it should not be decided by ONE Senator.

And if you think that the One Senator Hold is bad policy now, just wait until we have the Senator From Exxon or the Senator From Aetna (oh, wait a minute, we already do--"Dick" Liberman).

Time is running out on our democracy. We are out of timeouts, there are 3 seconds left on the clock, and we need to put up a 3-pointer to win the game.

We need to light up the airwaves and social networks about this problem. We need to educate our friends about what's going on and why "nothing ever gets done."

We need to pressure Democrats and Bernie Sanders in the Senate to stand up and push the proverbial red button. Give them the launch codes for the Nukes. Make all 100 Senators weigh in on this. Televise it on all the networks and give it the same publicity as we did for Friday's Press Conference for Tiger Woods.

If we can televise Tiger Woods' press conference on all networks to find out who else he's screwing, then why can't we televise this Nuclear Option vote and let the 100 Senators show us who they are screwing?

Then count the votes and start grilling the naysayers as to why they oppose Majority Rule.

And, if it doesn't pass the first time, bring up the Point of Order for another vote again--until we get Majority Rule in the U.S. Senate.

After all, until that happens, nothing else will get done in Washington, anyway.