This is a cause that I have come up with, and I think it a noble one. Get more details on the Facebook group page, but the jist is:
U.S. taxpayer dollars should never allow a U.S. official (Representative, Senator, President, judge, or anyone else whose salary is paid by public taxes) to make MORE than the salary for his/her position.
Example: If a Senator’s 2009 salary is $174k, but he/she made $80k on a real estate deal in 2009, they would only be allowed to keep $94k in wages from the federal government.
President Obama said in his State of the Union speech last night:
Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.
I think my idea is a very simple way for him and for Congress (and others) to demonstrate that. Check it out.
You know I’m really not for meddling with the system at all, but basically that video says “America can’t do it because England and Canada did it, and it doesn’t work, and there’s no way we could do it better.”
It also, in lieu of building a socialized medical system, justifies charging patients $5 for an aspirin because they need that money for innovations to improve trauma technology availability, cancer treatments, MRIs, etc.
So basically, the costs of all those innovations get distributed among everyone, even people not using it.
How is that not already a socialized system? So can’t America, the land of great innovation do it better? If not … well that’s a sad forecast.
I mean would a single payer system with incentives not solve the problem too? The title of this video is hardly accurate …
The video talks about how Obama purportedly is building a single payer system (this is purely conjecture), then it goes on to conclude that such a single payer system couldn’t work because Canada and England can’t make it work. It “destroys/pulverizes/crushes” a theoretical Obama “‘health care’ plan” that doesn’t even exist on the grounds that there’s no way America could implement a system better than Canada or England …
You know, it’s a funny thought, but representing the people of the United States is more a civic duty and a means to an end than a career. Check the writings of the founders of this nation — you represent this country because it’s the right thing to do, not because you can make a lifetime out of it. (Sorry, no references here, but it’s true — anyway it’s my opinion regardless of who else shares it).
So here’s the thing: All US Congresspeople should waive their rights to compensation via the US Treasury completely.
Yes, there is a recession right now, and it would be a genuine, stewartly statement. But there have been recessions before, and that shouldn’t be the reason.
Senators and Representatives (and even the President and Supreme Court Justices) work very hard, and they deserve to make top dollar. That being said, they should be performing their duties out of service to their country, not to get paid.
So, here is my proposal: there will be a salary for all Congresspeople (Representatives and Senators), the President, and the Supreme Court Justices.
However, if their adjusted gross income on their tax returns exceeds said salary, they must pay the balance back to the IRS.
So, the freshman Congressman from state X only makes $30k a year as a teacher? Fine, pay him the $144k balance up to his $174k salary (2009 — US Congress Salaries and Benefits). Congresspeople deserve $174k a year, but not when they’re already raking it in as a lawyer, writer — whatever.
I am titling this the “US Government Salary Forfeiture Movement.” If you agree, spread the word. I want this to become the law. I wish these guys were already doing it, as it seems like the right thing to volunteer for.
Anyway, tag your blogs with “US Forfeiture” — get the word out, get people talking. No high level government official has the right to complain about any fiscal issue while he or she is taking unnecessary funds from the US Treasury for performing a basic, humble, civic duty.
At the very minimum, this makes your representatives in government boldly claim that they are doing their job as a service to their country, not as a means to wealth.
Ok the uproar over this gesture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY) is completely out of hand. Conservatives see it as an admission of Middle Eastern sovereignty over the United States. Liberals see it as a simple miscue.
Is it either? Well, it is both, but let’s be reasonable. Does the Saudi King now believe he has absolute sovereignty over the United States? Has he claimed the United States and its possessions into the domain of Saudi Arabia?
Hardly.
It is ignorant to continually dispute things like this. These are dignitaries. They are not gods. That is, they make mistakes, and they realize people from other cultures make mistakes.
I am not 100% convinced that Obama is bowing, because it looks more like he’s bending over to pick up a quarter he dropped or something. However, if he did bow, it was undoubtedly a gesture of good faith. President Obama did not hand the keys of the United States over to King Abdullah. Yes, a bow to that nature in the Muslim culture is a gesture of complete submission. Obama is not a Saudi citizen however, and Abdullah must be accustomed to interacting with people of different cultures. To that point, it is not likely that the Saudi King recognized this gesture as anything but one of good will.
You’ve got to remember. Leaders constantly get immersed in different cultures and have no choice but to be lenient in their interpretations both in spoken and body language. Look at it this way: if King Abdullah would have smacked Obama on the butt like a basketball player in the locker room, would we really think they were good buddies? You can be certain that the first glance interpretation we made of the gesture would be accompanied by a great deal of skepticism and debate.
If the Saudi King believes he has gained any control over the United States, he did so because of the failed policies of our previous, incompetent, arrogant former President. You know, Dubya? He is the most significant cause of our dwindled respect from our worldly observers.
The “terrorist attacks” of September 11th, 2001 occurred approximately 8 months after George W. Bush was inaugurated the 43rd President of the United States of America. Therefore, Bush’s failure to demonstrate a firm stand against the terrorist powers of the world directly led to this attack.
Disagree? Not preventing that attack is equally as at fault for Muslim sovereignty over the United States as Obama’s apparent faux pas.
Get over it, and, instead of nit-picking Obama’s non-godly ability to make mistakes, help us regain respect, not some ill-conceived reverence, in the international community.
We are not THE power, we are a communal power, and everyone is trying to get along.
Given that I’ve finally got the forum to publicly mention the point, does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that the first “African American” President of the United States is half white?
Frankly, I couldn’t care less about race. I may have racist tendencies, but they are unintentional, and I make an effort to extend my philosophies beyond them when I notice them. That being said, why is it that the offspring of a white parent and a black parent is considered black?
Calling Barack Obama the first “African American” or “black” President is just a testament to how far we have NOT come as a country and as a society. We see the offspring of a white parent and a black parent as black. We don’t see that offspring as white — evidently black alters white and not the other way around.
So, I say Barack Obama is the 44th white President as much as he is the 1st black, and that is an absolute fact. One may point out that he DOES actually look different. Clearly, his skin is a different color than a white person’s. It’s natural to notice the difference.
Ok fine, so he IS the first black President. He obviously looks different than the previous Presidents. Then again, as it turns out, Bill Clinton looks strikingly different from Harry Truman and Benjamin Harrison, and I’ve never read about how Abraham Lincoln liberated the world by being the tallest US President elected.
Someone who isn’t racist would see something amazing in Barack Obama’s skin color no sooner than in Ronald Reagan’s ears. Genetics, ethnicity, appearance: these should ideally be a footnote to the perspective of the individual.
It is without question a great step for a black American to become President given the level of open, blatant racism that existed even 40 years ago. That being said, we’re still considering Barack Obama black even though he’s technically genetically half black. We’re not considering him white, although we could do so just as accurately. In this case, would we still proclaim a social victory?
Summary: Obama’s skin color alone means nothing, so it’s his achievement as a black American that is noteworthy, but he is only a black American because we’re racist enough to call him black and not white. Ultimately, from this author’s point of view, a person’s race is nothing more than a feature, but as a society we still give weight to it beyond other physical attributes. That still makes us racist.
Someday, ideally, we will elect a <insert_distinct_minority_here> President and barely care about the adjectives. It will be then that we will have truly overcome such bigotry.
Random Wisdom
Humility must be one of the highest forms of arrogance. — Jeremy Tharp
@crimulus (Twitter)
RT @PJA64X It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. — Andre Gide 4 days ago
RT @YouQuotedQuotes The indispensable first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: decide what you want. ~Ben Stein 4 days ago
Oh well plenty of season left. 
