Tag: government

There are certain truisms however.  Diamonds are sparkly, fish swim in the sea, electricity allows us to interact in this way, and "Marriage," is between a man and a woman.  

Call it what you want, "pairing," "Coupling," "Partnering," etc.. but its not marriage unless its between a man and a woman. And to be clear, it is NOT a civil right.

On the old blog, Kevin Heine posted a great article on a recent manufactured issue within the Michigan Republican Party.  At the end of it he posted a video that is well worth the watch.

"Live now, pay later,"

Aside from the obvious reference to unearned hedonism and individual irresponsibility, it should be noted that governments derived from such careless individuals as the "live now" crowd can bring all of us even closer to being debt slaves.  Yet even without the notion of pleasure as an advance reward to leadership, the function of government runs unabated. One might find it differently in private enterprise however, according to Jack Spencer at Cap Con:

"In the private sector, businesses can't ignore economic reality by giving in to unrealistic union demands. They open their books and say, "look, we've had a lousy couple of years. We have to cut back or go under. We can't give you what you want." That reality check doesn't apply to government, which is always bargaining with other people's money. Those "other people" are us, the taxpayers. Over the decades, when faced with unpopular choices of cutting services or raising taxes, government officials have given unions most of what they asked for and left the tab to be picked up by future generations."

I've been there.  In fact, I have been in both places simultaneously.  At the business owned by my wife and I, folks haven't received raises in three years, yet as a county commissioner in 2012 I was present while union employees received automatic 1.5% increases. It made no sense to me that it should be so easy for a nearly unanimous Republican board to approve of such a thing, but over the years we have discovered that fiscal insanity is a scourge that has set upon both Capulet AND House Montague.

And it is generational too.  So much so, that entire infrastructures are collapsing from the weight that has long had its supports removed.  Pensions as a part of governmental financial negligence as referenced in the Cap Con piece above are responsible for cities literally falling apart, and legitimate public safety services being eliminated.

So what have we done to solve this?

One of the concerns going forward is that SOME enrollees have been given information about OTHER enrollees after using Healthcare.gov, the site which cost over 600 million and 3.5 years to launch and fail. The congressman's site reports

Congressman Kerry Bentivolio will soon introduce the Safe and Secure Federal Website Act. The bill requires that the Government Accountability Office certifies the security of every new website launched after July 2013 by the federal government. This ensures that federal agencies implement minimal security standards to protect individual's personal information and privacy.

Under this legislation, federal websites that collect personal information, such as social security numbers, will not be able to launch until they meet a minimal security standard.

I wonder if such a thing could be translated in a way to stop ALL activities by this unlawful government until security of personal information is guaranteed?

Particularly on issues of such magnitude as transparency or government influence in our daily lives. Yet a presumed difference between private and government monetary involvement on any issue seems to be enough to persuade its scholars that transparency is not an absolute.  Where government monies are spent it seems, is far more important to your freedoms than that which is expended to influence those expenditures or other acts. And that personal monies expended to influence government are not necessarily an impact on any personal liberties to warrant a demand for transparency.

We DO agree that limits should be removed from campaign finance. We agree that limiting to an arbitrary amount can impede free speech and political expression. What is considered a fair contribution into the process is a completely subjective matter that can only be resolved by the person who is willing to contribute into that process.  A person's individual priorities and where a subject reaches a level of importance are hardly the providence of external assignment.

Thus the most accurate manner in which to protect what is a sovereign right is to allow, nay, PROTECT, that person's ability to engage in the process at a level appropriate to that person alone. Our place, and that of government should be to prevent that which would infringe on such activity and instead encourage a stake in the game.

In other words, if an individual wishes to personally expend $1 Million on a county commission race for a friend, there should be no objection from government. If it was to advocate bonding for a new swimming pool in a community, that money expended by itself guarantees no votes, and it is that person's right to seek such approvals.

And anyhow, some things can be overdone.

In certain pockets, there is limited investment which he feels represents a turning point. His optimism is clearly tempered by what leadership might or might not do however.

"The more city government gets cleaned up, and gets better organized, thats going to naturally help my business. Cause it changes the perception people have of the city, through city government."

Whole Foods cannot anchor the ghost ship of Detroit by itself.

First, that government will, if allowed, can become the biggest obstacle to free trade, and an individual's chosen occupation by sheer incompetence.  Secondly, that if something is seen as disrespected, the disrespect will be amplified by the sheeple.

Medical device manufacturer Stryker of Kalamazoo layoff of 1000 workers is because of Obamacare according to the Weekly Standard:

" Late last week a Stryker spokesperson told me that Obamacare will cost the company fully 20 percent of its total research and development investments."

What might you think about it?

" I don't think it's the right answer. However, it is the law of the land, and the real question is: What can we do to make it a positive for Michigan?"

Just suck it up and play nice while the nice man in the whitehouse showers our Great Lakes State with golden raindrops.