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.