Our society and culture is influenced by what we see on television—whether it be a weekly drama, movie, news program, or commercial.    We may like to believe that we are independent and strong-minded enough to withstand the subliminal messages sent to us by Corporate America—but that’s baloney. 

I’ll tell you a secret:  I hate commercials so much that I prefer to watch my television shows on DVR so that I can fast forward through them.  But every now and then I have to endure the inane, insulting, and LOUD marketing of products that I neither want to own nor want to hear about.

I’ll tell you what I especially don’t like.

• I especially hate commercials that depict a child as more intelligent than an adult.  First, it’s not ever true and second, I do not think children should be so disrespectful to their elders
• And babies.  Please.  No more commercials with talking babies.  I certainly am not going to invest my money in a company whose spokes person is someone who has to have their diaper changed.
• I don’t like watching commercials about embarrassing ailments or feminine situations.   Especially during television shows that air during dinner time.  I really don’t need to hear about Sally’s Yeast Infection while slathering butter on my warm bread or about Richard’s Hemorrhoids as I take a bite of chili and cornbread.  These commercials are getting so explicit that I expect some time in the future we’ll actually see someone vomit or pee their pants.
• Food commercials that zoom in on the food item that is being peddled.  Every time I see one of those fast food hamburger commercials I want to hurl.  I’m surprised that the FDA allows these products to be considered food items.   They’ve been so heavily processed that they can’t possibly have any nutritional value.  Fast food burgers are the snake oil of the 21^st century.
• Celebrity endorsements.  Celebrities are not role models that I respect.  What?  You think I’m going to buy a shampoo just because Lindsay Lohan uses it?  Uh, no.
• I don’t like commercials that exaggerate the truth or lie.  Any commercial for an insurance company falls into this category.
• I don’t like commercials with the sexy girls that drip ketchup all over their white blouses.  I know I’m not the target audience, but I still don’t like these commercials.  Unless it was a sexy guy dripping ketchup all over his skin tight jeans or his bare, hairy chest.  Oh waiter!

What I do like:

• Humorous commercials, almost irreverent.  I did like that commercial “Where’s the Beef?”  Or the Volkswagen Darth Vader commercial.
• Commercials with an underlying story line that change over time.  A while back there were these coffee commercials about a budding romance.
• Budweiser commercials.  I love the horses.  I love the scenes of Americana. 
• High tech.  That Motorola commercial with all the white-robed zombies was pretty cool.
• And finally, commercials with animals.  Bud Light’s party dogs was one of the greatest commercials ever made.  Now THAT’s class. (I’m serious about this.  I love that commercial)

Apparently I hit a raw nerve on March 24, 2011 when I talked about illegal immigration.  There are some very strong opinions on this subject.  So I studied up a bit more and collected a few more facts.  I looked at reputable reports that had actual economic data, such as those from Harvard or UC San Diego.  Those reports that blathered on without any data or evidence to support their claims were examined, and then discarded.    Some of these latter “reports” were actually embarrassing, and seemed to be written by people who are allergic to facts.

The economic impact of illegal aliens is very complex.  Most of the studies that I considered “irreputable” didn’t look at the full picture—they only looked at a single data point.  Here is a table that describes the data that needs to be looked at:

In my mind, the single most important, and often ignored, fact is that immigration has a disproportionate affect on different segments of American society.  For the rich and business owners, they are an economic boon in that they are cheap labor and they purchase goods and services that the rich are selling.  For the poor and uneducated, however, they are competition for jobs (which is why this segment of America’s population is the angriest about illegal immigration).  But the labor of illegal immigrants also results in lower food prices.  And the immigrants buy goods and services that then creates more jobs that are held by Americans.  For the Federal Government, illegal aliens are a cost that is passed over to taxpayers by diminishing social services, such as PELL grants for the poor and Head Start programs.  But the Federal Government also receives additional taxes created as a result of the illegal population.

According to the economic studies, if you look at the overall economic impact of illegal aliens, the net result is null.   That is, the cost of illegal aliens is totally offset by the revenue generated by this population.  Granted, the economic impact is not distributed equitably among all American citizens.  The rich benefit the most from the illegal aliens.

A lot of the alarmist propaganda that I found describes the use of U.S. medical facilities by illegal aliens that U.S. tax payers have to then pay for.    What the propaganda fails to mention is that U.S. citizens abuse this, too!  I was talking to a woman last month who described her lack of health insurance and, since she was sick, was just going into the Emergency Room on a weekly basis to deal with this.  That would have been okay if she was paying, but she wasn’t!  According to the U.S. Census data, 16.7% of American are uninsured.  That’s about 51 million people!  Of that 51 million uninsured people, about 10 million of them are illegal residents.   Granted, that’s a lot.  But it’s only 20% of the money we tax-payers are forking over for uninsured medical visits.  But, I must add that the number of insured residents has been the same for the last 20 years.  Therefore, since 100% of America’s population growth is due to immigration, it seems a logical conclusion that 100% of the increase in uninsured residents is also due to immigration.

Another point in the alarmist propaganda is the loss of jobs to illegal aliens.  The economic studies I read said that American job loss is due more to movement of jobs to India and China rather than to illegal aliens.

After looking at all the data, I have finally come to an opinion. 

First, I must admit that I don’t like it that our population is growing so fast that this is used as an excuse for sprawl and uncontrolled residential development.  I also don’t like it that our growing population means that I have to wait a little longer in the grocery store line or on the freeway.  And we have already established that 100% of America’s population growth is due to immigration.

But we cannot stop immigration.  Nor should we want to.

But we also can’t have uncontrolled immigration. 

I propose we make it easier for people to immigrate to this country, and establish order so that MORE taxes are paid by this particular demographic so American tax dollars aren’t spent supporting them.  Didn’t we do this pretty well with Ellis Island?  I would rather have Federal jobs that process immigrants, make sure they are paying taxes, and keeping out drug smugglers than Federal jobs that hunt down a poor mother and her children who are just trying to join her husband.  The first addresses economic issues while the second is just plain mean.

But I must address the elephant in the room.

The main reason some people don’t want the immigrants is not because they are illegal or because they cost money, but because they are brown.

I have no response to that because it is impossible to respond to racism, sexism, ageism, and stupidity.  And there will always be people who have these handicaps.

My friend Tom C. and I recently had an interesting email exchange about immigration in this country.  It’s a hot topic among many.  The far right want to disallow the children of illegal immigrants the rights to American citizenship.  The far left wants to forgive all illegals and welcome them to America. 

Illegal immigrants have been blamed for increasing the taxes of Americans as they collect welfare, get college grants, and taking away American jobs.  Is that true?  Or, do the illegal immigrants bring about commerce and sales tax dollars?

Here is what I’ve learned about immigration in America:

• There are more illegal immigrants than legal
• Since 1972, the SOLE cause for U.S. population growth has been due to immigration.  Had there been no immigration, the U.S. population would be less in 2011 than it was in 1972 (which makes you realize that all the sprawling tracts of houses being over-built in places like Las Vegas, Elk Grove, and Florida are a direct result of immigration)
• In my opinion (no data) the politicians have no real desire to curb immigration, whether it be legal or illegal, because those who control the wealth in the U.S. are making money off of the increased U.S. population and it is a source of votes.  Since people believe that population growth equals economic growth (it does not), and since the U.S. population is NOT growing (a different topic for a different time), the ONLY way to increase their wealth is (in their minds) to allow for unfettered immigration.

I am currently reading the writings of our Founding Fathers and they were all for immigration and nationalization of the children of those immigrants.  The U.S. differs from other countries (except Australia and Canada) because we were founded by immigrants and essentially made great by them.  (Hybrid Vigor)  

As a Moderate, I have looked at the data and tried to come up with an opinion, rather than let a political party dictate an opinion for me.  First, I strongly believe that immigration has gotten WAY out of control in this country and I don’t care if the wealthy are becoming more wealthy from these additional people.  However, on the other hand, as I read more of the Founding Father literature and understand the intent of the different elements of our constitution, I realize that to change our immigration laws is to change the premise of the founding of this country. 

We have already changed the premise of the founding of this country when we (a) eliminated slavery and (b) allowed women to vote.  Is it time to modify another one of the premises of the founding of the United States and limit immigration?  It’s a hard question.  I think I need more data.

Dear Republican Party:

If you want to beat Obama in 2012, you will need the help of us Moderates and Independents.  In order to do that, you need a candidate that is better than Obama.  The current roster of Republican candidates just doesn’t muster up and here’s why:

1. I would like to have a President who is well-educated, well-spoken, and smarter than me. (Palin and Bachman are immediately out of the running, since together they don’t have a whole brain)
2. I could never vote for anyone who caters to the Tea Party or Birthers, even if it’s all talk just to get their votes.  It’s too deceitful (Trump is out, Huckabee is out, and of course, Palin and Bachman and Paul, who are the uncontested leaders of the Tea Party)
3. I could never vote for anyone who isn’t concerned about Climate Change.  Or who doesn’t respect science.  (Michelle Bachman claims Global Warming is a “hoax.”  Who is this woman?)
4. I want a President who is willing to work across party lines. (This eliminates Gingrich, who showed in 1997 that he would rather shut down our government than work out a deal with the Democrats)
5. I could never vote for a lobbyist.  I think lobbying should not be allowed to influence elected officials the way they do.  I like the fact that one of the first things President Obama did after he took office is regulate lobbyists.  It’s probably one of the reasons other politicians don’t like him so much, and, of course, the fact that he’s black. (Haley Barbour was one of the biggest lobbyists ever, and this makes me think his dealings aren’t always from a clean deck.  It would be like voting for Jack Abramoff—convicted of conspiracy and corruption)
6. I could never vote for a politician who claims to be an evangelical Christian.  They tend to focus on social issues rather than fiscal ones, and are generally too militant, too judgmental, too short-sighted, and frankly, too often evil towards people who don’t believe the same way they do.  Oh, and hypocritical, too.  This is not an insult on Christians because many of the finest people I know are Christians—it’s just an insult on the ones who claim to be Evangelical and who choose to go into politics.  It’s usually the Evangelicals who are first to want to take away services to the poor and the first ones to get caught in some kind of sex scandal—like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ray Boltz, Marvin Gorman, Ted Haggard, Vaughn Reeves, etc.  (Pawlenty and Huckabee just got chucked)

Mitch Daniels has a lot of potential.  He’s knowledgeable about economic issues and he hasn’t said anything stupid.  He is my husband’s favorite Republican.

I used to like Mitt Romney until he changed his position on abortion rights.  He was more electable when he was more moderate.  He has since started to cater to the far right and abandoned those of us in the middle.  As far as I’m concerned, unless he becomes a little less judgmental towards women and gays, he’ll be getting No votes from the Moderates.  The same goes for Frank Wolf, who I agree with on many things, except his stance on abortion and gay marriage.

I am intrigued by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.    She believes humans have contributed to climate change, and is very liberal when it comes to gay rights.  I’m not too crazy about some of foreign affair votes, but considering that she is Chair Woman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she no doubt knows more than I do!  She has great potential to Moderates.

I would be happy to vote for any of the following Republicans:

• Olympia Snow.  She has acted with integrity, intelligence, and honor.  She is willing to work with the Democrats.  If she were on the Republican ticket, I would most likely vote Republican.
• Colin Powell.  There are few military leaders I respect as much as Colin Powell. 
• Susan Collins.  Like Senator Snow, she is from Maine.  Those people in Maine seem to elect good ones.
• Jim Gerlach.  Although a Republican, he is a moderate and has positions similar to my own on climate change.

Yours Sincerely,

A Moderate Voter

I’ve been in my kitchen this morning making Shepherd’s pie (a recipe that my friend Julie gave me several years ago). As I peeled the potatoes and carrots, I looked out my kitchen window and watched the snow come down in almost white-out conditions. That’s when I shuddered in disgust at all the times I have recently heard people comment “doesn’t look like there’s any global warming to me” or “so much for Al Gore’s theory” or something else equally inane.

What these misdirected people don’t understand (and so many of them are my friends and relatives that I don’t have the heart to blurt out what I’m thinking: “You idiot!”) is that “Global Warming” is a misnomer and that “Climate Change” is a better descriptor. Some areas may be growing warmer (glacial melting evidences this) and other places may be growing cooler. But overall, the average temperatures of the Earth are increasing. Reputable scientists and data show that this is irrefutable. But all the science in the world isn’t going to convince the extremist right (aka Tea Party) that global warming is real or that humans have had a hand in it. This topic has been so politicized and so polarized that logic and data are no longer relevant.

I know that there are other, more serious issues facing us today that I should comment on, including the Japan Earthquake/Tsunami/Nuclear meltdown crisis, the No-Fly-Zone in Libya, and the attempt of the Wisconsin governor to control public employee union rights (an issue on which I have mixed feelings). However, since my past week has been filled with watching and reading the details of those events as they presented themselves, I’m taking a break and going to enjoy this winter storm on this first day of Spring with a warm casserole and a Humphrey Bogart movie.

Julie’s Shepherd Pie

Potatoes, Onion, Carrots (my own addition—they were not in Julie’s original recipe), Ground beef, Frozen peas and corn (and/or other frozen vegetables—I like okra), Canned chopped tomatoes, Can of tomato paste (my own addition), Salt, Worchester sauce, Brown sauce and/or brown gravy mix (I usually use both), Cheese

Scrub, peel, and cook potatoes as for mashed potatoes. Set aside. In a skillet, chop the onion and carrots and fry them. Add the ground beef and cook until brown. Add frozen vegetables. Add canned tomatoes. Add salt, Worchester sauce, brown sauce, and gravy mix. Simmer until there is a thick sauce. Add water if necessary (I usually add about a cup). Pour meat mixture into a glass dish. Mash the reserved cooked potatoes and then add them to the top of the meat mixture. Top the potatoes with grated cheese. Broil a few minutes to melt the cheese.

This picture was taken in 1991 at Thanksgiving. That is my younger brother, Ron, and my grandmother. She was one of the most wonderful people I have ever known. She never spoke ill of anyone and lived her whole life in a thoughtful and giving manner.  I have tried to live my life in her example.  I have not succeeded.

There’s al l this talk between the Republicans and the Democrats about cutting programs vs. increasing taxes.  The programs that the Republicans want to cut are those in the category of “Human Kindness” that is described on February 25.  The problem with that is that the bulk of that cash comes from Social Security, which the recipients contributed to, and Medicare which is necessary because America needs to take care of its elderly.  There are some definite improvements that could be made to these programs, but I’ll discuss those at a different date.

But taxes don’t need to be raised.  We just need to cut the right programs. 

Today I want to address the elephant in the room.  Why is no one talking about cutting the defense budget?  Isn’t THAT what has caused the current budget deficit?  Why should average American citizens give up benefits to support a war machine when there is no war?  Has the military become the modern form of welfare?

Going back to February 17 where the budget is listed, here are some items I think we should take big swipes at.  Not all are directly in the defense budget, but they are items for which I don’t think we’re getting a lot for our money.

Defense

• Family Housing  $1.8 billion  (Please remind me why we’re paying for this?  Isn’t this a type of welfare?)
• Overseas Contingency:   $159 billion   (this is just another way of saying “we don’t know how much it will cost and we’re not willing to economize when we attack other countries without good cause”)
• Child care services for military families:  $1.3 billion (why does the military get their child care paid for?  This doesn’t seem quite fair)
• Counseling for military families regarding repeated deployment:  $1.9 billion  (What if, instead, we didn’t repeatedly deploy them?)
• Career counseling for military spouses:  $84 million  (are you kidding me?  Cut this immediately!)

Homeland Security

• Transportation Security Administration:     $5.8 billion   (why don’t we cut here and just buy the airport TSA officers some porno films instead?)
• Customs and Border Protection:      $9.8 billion     (if we legalize marijuana, the Mexican cartels wouldn’t be doing all that smuggling)
• FEMA:  $7.3 billion (Do they actually do anything?  Were they ready when Katrina hit?  Or the Southern California fires of 2004?)

State Department

• Foreign Affairs Administration:   $12 billion   (Administration?  Are you kidding me?  The other departments have administration costs that vary from $95 million to $2 billion (Transportation is the exception). 
• Foreign Military Financing:  $5.5 billion  (Is there a more stupid idea than this one?)
• Pakistan Counter Insurgency:   $1.2 billion  (Okay, why are we doing this?)
• Millennium Challenge Corporation:  $1.2 billion  (Why are we spending money on global economic growth and ignoring economic growth here in the U.S.?  Here’s an idea on how to grow the economy—get money out of defense and put it into new technology!)

James Madison, one of our Founding Fathers, wrote that “when a state of war becomes absolutely and clearly necessary, all good citizens will submit with alacrity to the calamities inseparable from it.”  But Mr. Madison then added (and I paraphrase) that too often wars are the result of causes made up because certain branches of the “government derive the greatest accession of power and importance from the armies, offices, and expenses which compose the equipage of war.”  He continues by saying that “the actual war is not the only state which may supply the means of usurpation.  The real or pretended apprehension of it, are, sometimes of equal avail to the projects of ambition.”  Meaning that by pretending we need to be at war, the American people can lose their freedoms as easily as if we were invaded and taken over by a foreign army.

Our dog Tahoe is a delight.  The muzzle on her sweet face has turned almost completely white and her tail is constantly wagging in happiness. 

She turned 13 years last month and is now completely deaf.  We’ve had to develop doggie sign language to communicate with her as she has gotten older and lost her hearing.  Our vet told us when she was a puppy that she was part coyote.  As she got older, her “coyoteness” would display itself in various behavioral idiosyncrasies that we have never seen in dogs.  In her youth we have seen her leap into the air and catch a bird in flight.  Of every dog we have ever known, she is the one with the Criminal Mind.  You can watch her as she works things out in her brain on how to steal a piece of meat from the table (which she has done on many occasions and so now we never leave food on the table).  She has learned how to open doors—a feat that our other dog Frisco, a beautiful, yet dim-witted, golden retriever, is not capable of. 

Because Tahoe is so obviously starving (not) she feels she must lick every dirty plate in the dishwasher.  Because this requires standing up and she has gotten a little arthritic in her old age, she will gently remove our Denby plates from the dishwasher and carry them over to her bed in the living room and lick them there.  Now we must keep the dishwasher closed.

Tahoe’s favorite thing to eat, however, is the cat’s food.  Stalking and capturing cat food seems to be her primary reason for living.  First, she sneaks into the garage at any opportunity.  Then, defying any commands to the contrary she zips over to the cat counter, stands on her hind legs and grabs the cat food bowl into her mouth and runs to her bed.  There she will scarf up all contents of the bowl so that by the time my husband or I can reach her all she is doing is licking up the remnants.  It’s pointless to yell at her since she is deaf.  And besides, who can yell at that sweet face?  Instead, I pick up the cat food bowl and give Tahoe a little scowl.  But She is content because she has won this battle.

I talk about Tahoe today because I need a break from the U.S. budget.  I’ll get back to it very soon, but for now I prefer to watch my dog play and appreciate that every day with Tahoe in it is exceptional.

Tahoe loves to play with toys. The forest around our house has scattered dog toys throughout

The U.S. is going to spend over $3,821,001,000,000 in 2011 (this value doesn’t include the “classified” budget for Intelligence). That’s $3,821,001 million.  That’s $3,821 billion.  That’s $3.8 trillion.   With a U.S. population of 310 million, that means they are going to spend over $12,000 per man, woman, and child.  What am I getting for my $12,000?

 I’ve taken the budget (that I posted February 20) and divided departmental spending into 4 categories:

1. Economy.  This is money that is spent to build our short-term or long-term economy.  Agricultural spending falls into this category.  Small business loans would also fit into this category.  NASA and scientific research are in this category.  The lowest amount of our tax dollars are used on things that will provide long-term benefit to our economy.  This pisses me off.  I think that building our economy should be one our biggest expenditures.  Loaning out money to big cat corporations will not provide a sustainable economic basis—because it was those fat cat corporations that caused the problem in the first place.  (By the way—why are the executives of Goldman Sachs not in jail?)
2. Infrastructure.  Our roads and bridges.  Our water supply and air quality.  Education (I consider skilled American workers as a necessary part of the American infrastructure).  This is our second lowest expenditure.  And since our economy is tied to having a stable infrastructure system for transportation, this category strongly impacts our Economy.  I think we need to build up our transportation capabilities to move goods and improve our educational system.
3. Human Kindness.  This includes medical research and food for starving children.  It also includes Medicare and Social Security.  This is by far our biggest expenditure.  This is the one that the Republicans, Tea Party leaders, and Militant Christians want to cut.  (Note to Tea Party members:  if you collect Social Security and are on Medicare or Medicaid, you should not be a Tea Party member).  Although I don’t want big cuts in this area, I would like some serious modification in direction of funds.
4. War.  Self Explanatory.  The 2^nd largest expenditure.  This is the one that I think needs to be cut.   Substantially.  We’re going to spend almost a trillion dollars in 2011 on the American war machine.  This is the single budget expenditure that is taking this country’s economy down the toilet.  I don’t think this is how our Founding Fathers saw the U.S. as a country. 

Economy                             $216,903 (5.3%)

Infrastructure                    $308,983 (7.9%)

Human Kindness              $2,344,275 (60.5%)

War                                        $950,840 (25%)

I’ve been away awhile, but I’m back!  I was away on a quilting retreat and then I had a house guest, and finally I spent a good amount of time studying today’s topic—the Federal budget.

Like most Americans at this time of year, I am currently working on my taxes.  This is a pain in the ass, not only because it’s work for me (and I’m very busy with more important things to do—like quilting or visiting with my friends) and loss of money for me, but because I’m not sure I like the way the Federal government is spending my money.

Last week I went to the website where the budget is listed and downloaded it so that I could carefully peruse it.  Personally, I think our economy would be in better shape if every American of voting age gave up 8-10 hours a year to examine the federal budget.  But since most Americans would rather watch Bristol Palin dance or Lindsay Lohan walk into court, I know this will never happen. (Basically what I’m saying is that if our economy is in the toilet, maybe it’s our own fault).

Anyway, back to the budget.  For those of you who don’t want to take the time to look at our national budget, I’m going to break it down for you.  This is overly simplistic and so I’m sure I’ve missed the nuances that are involved in creating a budget for a country as populous, diverse, and advanced as ours.  When looking at the Defense budget, keep in mind that we are NOT at war with anyone.  These costs are PEACE time costs, because our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan do not constitute the true definition of “war.” 

In today’s blog, I’m only going to present the budget.  I’ll discuss it in future blogs and hope to read your comments.  I’d like to hear what you’d cut.  Here’s my attempt to capture the original 2011 budget, which is a fluid document as Republicans and Democrats take whacks at it over the next few weeks or months.  (Note:  Each Section has a line item “Other” which I didn’t fill out)

Recent events in Egypt have awakened my indignity to the amount of foreign aid the U.S. pays.  Egypt’s most powerful institution is their military whose leaders have been trained in the U.S. and which has received $1.3 billion in aid every year since 1979.  Egypt receives an additional $250 million for “economic” aid, which has, instead, gone into Mubarak’s pockets (the lack of jobs and opportunity is the primary reason Egypt’s young people started this revolt).  Mubarak is reported to be worth $70 BILLION.  And how much of that came from U.S. taxpayers?  What did we get for our money?

Historically, the purpose of foreign aid is for national security, humanity, and U.S. commercial interest.  Regarding aid for areas rife with HIV or malaria, it is a good thing to use U.S. funds (as long as the bulk of the money isn’t going into the pockets of some local despot)

I read a report prepared by the Foreign Affairs division to congress in 2007.   In terms of providing information that would help our congress people make a decision on foreign aid, the report was totally useless.   The report briefly touches on the topic of how ineffective our aid program has been, but doesn’t describe why.  It doesn’t discuss the lack of transparency and accountability for the money that is provided.  Instead the report seems to defend foreign aid by pointing out that it’s not that big compared to the rest of the U.S. budget. 

Frankly, with the exception of diseases (which need to be nipped in the bud), I think foreign aid needs to end.  The 2010 budget for NASA was $18.69 billion.  The Department of Agriculture had a budget of $26 billion.  The Department of Energy had a budget of $26.3 billion.  But foreign aid?  $51.7 billion.  

This has to stop.  I don’t see that we’re getting much for our foreign aid money.  The citizens of countries that receive this aid generally hate us.  The money that is meant to help the poorer citizens is being siphoned off by corrupt leaders.  And that money could very much help American citizens who are in desperate need.