Massachusetts Flip Flop

Five years ago, Massachusetts had the very interesting prospect of having a Republican governor (Mitt Romney) be given the authority to name a replacement for the US Senate Seat occupied by then Presidential candidate John Kerry if Senator Kerry were to win the election. You see, Massachusetts, like many states, had a Constitution that empowered the sitting governor to name a successor to a US Senate seat if said seat were to become vacant. Well, as you likely already know, the Massachusetts legislature is seated with a super Democratic majority. They quickly took the Constitution into their own hands, and passed an amendment revoking that power from the governor, and turning it to the people through a Special Election. Let that sink in. The governor no longer has the power to appoint someone to an open US Senate seat. The people will now do so through a Special Election, within 5 months of the seat becoming open.

Well, as the story went in 2004, Senator Kerry remains a Senator. Mitt Romney stepped down as governor and pursued a presidential run himself in 2008. The governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, Deval Patrick. And now, in August of 2009, our country lost one of its long-standing leaders and Senators, Edward M. Kennedy. And per the amendment passed in 2004, a Special Election will need to occur. See above. A seat is now open. Within 5 months, an election will occur where the people will vote to name the successor. Again, this was voted in by the Democrats in 2004, "to empower the people to utilize their right to vote".

But hang on. Don't go so fast. The Massachusetts governor is now a Democrat. And there is some crucial legislature about to pass through the chambers of Congress in Washington (think Healthcare). The Democrats could use that seat now. Senator Kennedy's seat will remain unfilled for several months until the Special Election can occur, passed into law by the Democrats just five years earlier. But now, since the Democrats will be the impacted party, a call for swift legislative action is being made to reverse that law and to re-empower the governor to appoint someone to the seat. And by the time I write my next entry, I suspect it will be passed into law and we will have a new US Senator from Massachusetts. (Let's hope Governor Patrick doesn't pull a Blagojevich on us. But I don't think he will. There is so much integrity in Massachusetts politics for something like that to occur. I mean, who would manipulate law with backdoor deals and such?)

I am not a fan of Republicans. And I am not a fan of Democrats. True stories, like the one above, can be told and re-told over and over again about both of these parties. I ask you this, is this why we elected these people to office? Did we ask them to tear up, and then tape back up our Constitutions? To pick and choose which elements they like, and to discard the elements they don't? To flip flop based on who is in office, who has the majority, who has the most at stake? And to do it under the guise of "this is what Teddy wanted as a dying wish"? Using a man's death to swindle deals is disturbing, if you ask me.

On whichever side of the aisle you reside (or if you are like me, you don't pay too much attention to aisles, but rather to the individuals standing in the chamber), I hope this infuriates you. I hope it disgusts you enough to seek true change. Our president campaigned and got elected on a premise of "change". In 2004, Massachusetts changed law to suit the needs of an elected majority, NOT the needs of all individuals, as all our constitutions propose. And now, in 2009, our President supports another change, yet again to suit the needs of an elected majority (his majority), NOT the needs of all individuals. Until we elect officials that strive to represent 100% of their constituency, and not just the 40something% that got them elected, we will continue to see stories like the one above.

Change. Yes, we can. Hope. Change is coming. Yeah, right.

Musings about American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

This morning, I sat in 15 extra minutes of traffic than usual. In fact, it's been a solid month where I've spent 15 extra minutes in traffic. You see, my commute goes through a section of Interstate 90 that is under construction. There is a very pretty sign that informs all the drivers that it is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

From what I can tell, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped save some jobs. For one, the sign company that makes those signs got some new business. That's good. The auto industry got so much of the hype, but I guess that the American Sign Manufacturing companies were pretty critical to the economy, too. I'm glad someone was looking out for them. See? Stupid me, I would have overlooked their need for a bailout. Further, the four empty construction trucks on the off ramp in the midst of construction were saved from being victims of the "Cash for Clunkers" plan. (Wait, didn't we want those traded in? I noticed that all four trucks were domestic and that none of them were hybrids. Strange. I would have thought they'd operate off ethanol or battery. Perhaps my eyes deceived me.) And even further, thank goodness that Dunkin' Donuts was able to get some business from the 5 workmen that were standing on the off ramp drinking coffee. Not only did we save those 5 workmen their jobs, but we also assisted Dunkin' Donuts by giving those workmen the income to purchase those coffees. And further, since we all know that the economy provides ripple effect after ripple effect, we also helped Wrangler Jeans because the jeans these 5 workmen were wearing will undoubtedly wear out their bottoms soon, at least I presume so, from sitting on the guard rail while drinking their coffees.

While I was driving by, and thinking about how this all helped stimulate the economy, I thought of the thousands of drivers who are losing 15 minutes every morning due to the increase in traffic. And since I like to think of ripple effects, I was wondering how the companies for whom all these people work are affected by the lost productivity from all these workers. I'm sure the net value these people provide to the GDP is far less than the GDP contributed by the workmen with their Dunkin' Donuts coffee.

I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again, thank goodness we have elected officials who know more about economics than I do.

Stimulus, Taxes and Healthcare, Oh My!

A funny thing happened during the "Cash for Clunkers" debacle. Our government learned that if people had more money in their pockets (i.e. in this case, a $4500 credit), they do something very profound with it...they spend it. I wonder if that would work if taxes were lowered and people had more money in their pocket? And if they spent the additional money, I wonder if it would stimulate the economy? And if the economy got a boost like that, I wonder if it would put more people to work to offset the overall spike in demand? And if more people went to work, I wonder if that would translate to lower unemployment? And if unemployment was lowered, I wonder if that would translate to a smaller deficit since less money would be spent on our welfare state? Thank goodness our elected leaders know more than I do. See? I would have gone and decreased government spending and lowered taxes.

The great state of Illinois is adding candy to the list of items that will now bear the full brunt of the highest sales tax in the country. In Chicago, candy will now get the same 10.25% sales tax as clothing, shoes, automobiles, etc. You see, candy used to be considered "food". And "food" was only taxed at a little over 2%. Now that candy is no longer "food", it gets the full 10.25%. But, there's a silver lining. Some candy has flour in it, and flour is the determinant if the item is "food". Snickers? Candy. Kit Kat? Food. Seriously. I'm not kidding. Let's play along. Three Musketeers? Food. Butterfinger? Candy. So, if you're in the checkout line and you have a chocolate craving, remember to buy "food" and not "candy". Pick up the Kit Kat, and leave the Hershey's Chocolate Bar behind. I'm looking forward to the bailout of the "candy" makers, since they were unfairly impacted by this new tax. Coming September 1 to a theater near you.

I lived in England for a year, and had the "benefit" of socialized healthcare. My salary (bartender/waiter) was clearly "lower class". My tax rate was astronomical. And my doctor had dirty hands, didn't wear gloves and seemed annoyed that I would ask any questions when he prescribed me an antibiotic without looking at me for longer than 3 minutes. Oh, and my wait was well over 2 hours. Thank goodness we formed a nation back in 1776 (severing ties with England) and yet we are still smart enough to take over their best traditions. I'm going to buy some Billy Bob teeth now so that I can prepare myself for my new dental outlook.

To our elected officials, for years I have felt like you and I were simply on a different side of an argument. I favored adherence to the Declaration of Independence and to the Constitution of the United States, preserving the rights of every individual, and you favored quotas, patriot acts, "progressive" taxation (i.e. legalized Robin Hood) and spending money you don't have. But now, you have gone further. You have offended me. You have offended my intelligence by not only presenting falsehoods in the name of "yes, we can" and "change", but you have spit on the traditions that our country and your predecessors held dear. People used to earn what they got. You've taught us that we can do nothing and still get. What will happen when the "getters" outnumber the "earners"? It's not that far away.