Government Shutdown. Who's to blame, really?

     Ok I've had enough. I can't keep my thoughts in my head over all this anymore or it might explode. All over my Facebook feed I've been seeing people moan and whine about the inconveniences to their lives caused by the current government shutdown. Things like field trips canceled, parks closed, or unable to talk to the IRS about some issue. (um people do know that taxes were due last April right?) Honestly, the whole thing reeks of the very selfishness that these malcontents are whining about. Oh blessed hypocrisy, thou art everywhere!
     The sheer ignorance of how government works, what each branch is responsible for, and why the house of representatives is doing this is absolutely lost on the masses. I recently heard the phrase "low information voters" used to describe the people who are bellyaching over this shutdown. I think that says a lot about the majority of people who whine the loudest when their 'services' are suspended, cut off, shutdown, or otherwise interrupted for any reason. They don't see past the immediate inconvenience to the real root of the issues at hand.

     First, a little history lesson here for those of you who really don't understand the legislative process and how our government is funded. Apropriation Bills (laws that say how our government spends our money they collect in the form of taxes) MUST according to Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution originate in the House of Representatives.  This power is given to them to be a check to the budget created by the president and make sure that our government is spending it's money wisely. (I know, insert hysterical ironic laughter here.)  
     So many out there blame the "Republicans" (when in fact it is only the liberty leaning Republicans in the house that are standing their ground here.) for refusing to fund the government. When in fact the blame for this lands squarely on the shoulders of those who refuse to compromise. The members of the house of representatives are doing their jobs by listening to the people who elected them and sent them to DC specifically to tackle the problems with the presidents new healthcare law. An overwhelming majority (some polls are as high as 54%) do NOT want the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Not funding it is the only recourse those people's representatives have right now for following their constituents' wishes. Even so, they have tried to compromise with the senate and the white house. They are asking to for a year to fix the issues with in the law that the HHS has admitted exist. They have offered funding bills for things that both the senate and the white house have said are important (though non-essential according to the rules previously established) and yet the Senate (at the direction of the white house) refuses to even hear debate on those bills. 

           There are so many issues I have with Obamacare that I am happy to see people standing up to try to delay or stop it. I cannot believe the lies I've heard from the white house about this reform. For instance, the president said:

I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage -- they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. ... If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. ... No one will take it away, no matter what. (Remarks By The President At The Annual Conference Of The American Medical The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, June 15, 2009)

     The reality is that insurance companies are leaving states that have embraced the ACA, Coverage options are very limited, and if I do want to keep my doctor and have to change insurance companies to do so my family's insurance premiums will DOUBLE. According to the Cover Oregon financial calculator my family qualifies for a monthly subsidy of $165 towards our insurance premiums. In order to get the same the coverage, deductible amount, and out of pocket maximum allowance that we currently have with a company that includes our current providers our monthly premium for a family of 5 would be $1116 per month before the "tax credit". After applying the credit it would be $951 monthly. We currently pay a pretax medical coverage contribution via my husbands employer of a little under $500 a month. Under the "Affordable" Care Act our monthly insurance premiums would almost DOUBLE. That's an extra $5400 a year in health insurance costs over what we pay right now. Add onto that the additional taxes on medical devices, the reduction in the Healthcare Flexible Spending Accounts by half, and any other unknown hidden costs and this law is going to cost my family money we just don't have.

There. I've said my peace. For now. I'm sure there will be more rants on another day.

This Mama Won't Fly

(moved from MamaFae's Knit Whits)

With my husbands impending trip to Florida looming ahead my attention has been drawn to recent blog posts, interviews, and articles regarding the Advanced Imaging Technology scanners now in place at many airports across the country.  These scanners use low ionizing radiation to create what basically amounts to a "naked" image of the person in the scanner use back scatter technology to show any objects under their clothing.  There is grave concern by many including pilot groups about the health risks of repeated exposure to this radiation.
If you object to the scanners and radation you may of course "opt out", but then you have no alternative but to submit to an "enhanced pat down", which many say amounts to an invasive procedure akin to foreplay!

Here's the thing: there is an 80% LESS chance of being blown out of the sky by a terrorists than there is of being killed in a fire.  Let me say that again, you have more to fear from fire than from a terrorist.  Don't believe me, read this. The scare tactics used to create a sense of urgency and need to comply are just that, scare tactics.  We are not any less safe for not taking of our shoes at the security line, nor are we any more safe for being felt up by TSA.

This is over the top. And furthermore I do believe our greatest threat is not from woman with bomb breast implants it is from a very specific sector of people. Those who style themselves as radical Muslims and have declared Jihad against the US and it's people/interests. I'm so very sorry if that offends someone out there who might come across my little corner of the internet and read my blog.  But honestly, who the heck attacked us on 9/11 anyway? Who blew up the USS Cole, or more recently who tried to mail bombs to the US?? Al Qaeda that's who. Why did that do it? Because they hate our way of life, who we are as a people, and believe us to be infidels who much be destroyed.  That's why.

Until we come to terms with this and call a spade a spade our denial will cause this sort of thing to happen.  We will continually be forced to give up our liberties at the point of a gun all because some fanatic decides to blow himself up in the name of Allah and take as many infidels with him as possible. And you know what folks? When we allow our government to expand it's power over our lives, give us no choice but to submit to illegal searches and accept actions that violate the 4th amendment THE TERRORISTS WIN.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

Our politically correct sensibilities are so afraid of offending those who want to kill us, or those who sit quietly in our own country while their affiliation with the terrorists is besmirched that we are willing to submit to this invasive abuse rather than use other more affective tools to keep our airspace safe.

It is true that there are 2 ways in America to get things done. Vote at the ballot box, or vote with your dollar. As of now I am voting with my dollar. I won't fly. I won't give money to an industry that supports the blatant disregard for the 4th amendment nor will I condone a government agency that perpetrates this on it's citizenry.  And I plan on letting anyone who cares to listen know it. I'm unsubscribing from all of my frequent flyer newsletters etc and writing letters to those airlines telling them why.  I encourage you to do the same.  Stand up for your liberties or while you are sitting coach they will be taken away.

A conversation on Liberty and Govt's roll in marriage

Some days I feel like getting my libertarian point of view on governmental rolls through the thick head of liberals is more painful that banging my head against a spiked brick wall. The following conversation is the perfect example:


ME: For some it can be though. And that's okay! Just let then have there version as long add they don't try to define it for anyone else..honestly the only legal anything that should be attached to massage is a binding private contract. No govt or church necessary.

Person #1: It's not a private contract, it's a legal contract. That is the domain of the government, not individuals or churches.

Person #2: I believe we're on the same page Nikki, or rather on compatible ones, even if I didn't understand what a massage has to do with any of this (although now I want one! Sarah Kate, Nichol is a libertarian, so she doesn't believe government should be involved at all. I don't share that, but that's why I said "or rather on compatible ones", since the point here is that she doesn't agree with inequality either.
or at least that's how I'm interpreting this!

ME: Ugh auto correct!

ME: My point is that it shouldn't be the realm of govt. I can join into a private contact for a myriad of different purposes and the only time the govt gets involved is when it needs to be upheld our dissolved. Not at its creation. Marriage should be no different.

ME: And yes Barbara i believe anyone should be able to marry whomever they choose, however they choose. Period.

Person #3: However, IF it was religious, then why does it require a license? AND if it is govt based, why is there a religious ceremony? Now I do realize that not everyone opts for the ceremony, but you get my point....

Person #1: The problem is that marriage is not a contract that is only recognized by and relevant to the two people involved. It's a contract that's recognized by employers, insurance companies, hospitals, schools, courts, social services, and hundreds of other organizations and services that families rely on. The government needs to step up and declare that by law, a marriage between any two consenting adults must be recognized by all of those organizations and services equally. Otherwise, gay couples will have to spend all of their time (as they do now) trying to get these organizations to recognize the personal agreement they've made. And they suffer unbelievable hardships as a result. This is INCREDIBLY different from, for instance, a contract between two people to provide a service for a certain price.

Person #3: I agree. That was kinda my point.

Nichol: See all of that is crazy! The ceremony IMO whatever it looks like is because marriage is special, can be spiritual, and should be celebrated. The license is the govt's way to control and make money. Just my opinion of course

Person #1: How else are hospitals and courts supposed to decide whose opinions they have to take into consideration when it comes to whether or not a sick or dying person gets treatment, or has certain visitors? How else are insurance companies supposed to determine and be held accountable for the number of people they have to insure when they insure a "family"? How else are employers supposed to understand their legal obligations with regard to how pensions and benefits are paid out? How else are lawyers and judges supposed to determine who has a right to reasonably contest a will or settlement, or who has the right to speak on the behalf of a minor child? How else are creditors supposed to determine (and be held accountable for) who they can legally pursue for the repayment of debts? These things are all governed by the definition of family. It's not about a personal agreement, it's an integral part of the fabric of our society, and it needs to be equally applicable. If it was just about a personal agreement, we wouldn't even be having this conversation- it would be a non-issue.

ME: I realize that is the reality, Sarah. I just don't think it should be. I think that everyone would be better served if the government stayed out of they personal lives.
I also understand that at this point in our societal evolution we are dependent upon the govt to make those definitions for us because of the convoluted system of interference we have in place. I find it both sad and frustrating that we even have to have a conversation about who can marry who.

Person #1: You are certainly entitled to that opinion. I happen to think it's unrealistic and rather beside the point, but I certainly have my ideals that are unrealistic also, so who am I to judge?

ME: See i don't think it is "besides the point." I feel it is imperative to have the conversation. How else will things change? The way things are done now is absolute lunacy if you ask me.
We have allowed more and more control and have less and less freedom everyday.
Recognizing a legally binding civil contract of marriage for legal purposes is still the way to go for me. Let the churches do what they will, but if we have to have the govt involved then make it simple and all inclusive.

ME: If it were a system of personal liberty, a private contract of marriage would serve the same purpose that a license serves now with all of the legal ramifications you listed above. In fact, many of those issues could be defined within the contract  itself without the need of any civil interference unless one party decides to contest the contact at some point.
I know that isn't easily achieved in our current system. But then I think our current system is horribly unjust, oppressive, and meddlesome.

Person #1: "Recognizing a legally binding civil contract of marriage for legal purposes is still the way to go for me." That's all anyone is asking for. I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

ME: I didn't think we were arguing.  i was just stating that I wish it weren't necessary, and that the govt shouldn't need to be involved. They should never have been allowed to have a say in the first place.

Person #1:We were  I believe in the necessity of government, and I think this issue clearly demonstrates why it's necessary, but I can move on.

ME: I'm not an anarchist. The government had its roll, but i don't believe that defining marriage is one.

And I'd rather say we were having a discussion. arguing implies heated emotion like anger to me. I didn't feel any of that in your words, and i pray you didn't in mine.

Person #1: What possible role could be more important for the government to have if not to defend civil rights which people will not voluntarily recognize on their own? The ability to define who your family is is at the foundation of our society, of our humanity, of our pursuit of happiness.

ME: See I still think you're missing my point. Other than recognizing a marriage contract entered into by two people of legal age as valid and binding (and by extension requiring all others to recognize it's validity as well) the government doesn't belong in our personal lives.
Yes, protecting our liberties is very much the roll of government! It's most important roll if you ask me. Yet, there are thousands of laws on the books at all levels of government that defile our liberties every day. The Defense of Marriage Act is only one of them. I want to see it struck down, and believe with my whole being that it is unconstitutional.

Person #1: 1) The general scope and complexity of government is a completely different discussion.

2) You can't have it both ways. Either the government is in the business of protecting our civil liberties and should recognize a marriage contract entered into by two consenting adults, or defining marriage is not one of their roles.

ME: /headdesk. Defining marriage as one woman and one man is unconstitutional. Getting out of the way of people and preserving their freedom to enter into what ever contract they choose is the only roll they have here. If then they have to define marriage as a contract between two adults regardless of gender in order to protect that liberty then I guess they have to. I'd rather see them uphold "any contract between two consenting adults" as valid without the need to define what is contained within that contract.
That is what I mean by not defining marriage.
 And as for your #1. That IS the whole discussion. Our government is so pervasive and all reaching that it touches nearly every aspect of our lives including who we can or can't marry. That is wrong. It needs to change. Until it does we will continue to see battles like this over basic HUMAN rights.