Oh No! The TSA Wants to "Touch Your Junk" and Make Babies Cry

Oh no! Airport security scanners make babies cry! San Diegans are in an uproar because they refuse to have the TSA touch their "junk".

Surely by now you've have seen all the coverage about two viral videos which have created quite a buzz.  The first video shows a San Diego man refusing to go through the full body scan machines. (See Embedded
AP video)  As TSA procedure dictates, a refusal on the body scans will result in a mandatory pat down, up close and personal, by a TSA agent.  The man also somewhat objected to the pat down with the now famous line, "don't touch my junk".

There is also another viral video of a poor little three year old toddler who had to undergo a pat down by a TSA agent after the little girl set off a metal detector twice. Two videos like this and the debate on airport security has resurfaced.  Fox News, MSNBC and CNN have been talking about it on almost every program they aired yesterday.  I have to admit, that on this subject, I'm content that the media is providing extensive commentary.

Full Body Scan in progress.

There are many different arguments on this one, but I'll filter it down to just a few.  The first argument, is one sponsored by Ann Coulter on The Factor today, claims that the TSA has gone too far with their security scans.  Coulter argued that the intrusive body scanners would not have detected to the explosive materials used during the December 2009 attempt to bring down a Northwest Airliner en-route from Amsterdam. Therefore, the body scans really are more of a nuisance than an effective method for protecting passengers.


The second argument states that types of scanning methods currently being implemented are necessary to protect the lives of American citizens. Many folks agree that in the name of safety we may all have to sacrifice some convenience. Today, the TSA Chief John Pistole defended his agency's tactics before the Senate Committee on Commerce by affirming that the TSA is "using technology and protocols to stay ahead of the threat and keep you safe." Who can argue with that statement?

The TSA and John Pistole have been keelhauled by politicians and the media as of late for their earnest attempts at ensuring our own safety.  The very same politicians who demanded more security and almost unanimously supported the formation of the TSA after the 9/11 terror attacks. Once again, political opportunities to score brownie points with constituents instead of trying to resolve real issues.

I'm not implying that the TSA has come up with the best method to provide for our security or that the general public's concern about their right to privacy is a merit-less claim. In fact, some journalist have raised legitimate concerns about the perceived effectiveness of these methods and even the possible health risks posed by those body scanners. All of these are concerns that I believe should be up for debate and analysis.  However, I also believe that we should also review the accomplishments that these enhanced security measures have achieved over the last nine years.

We should ask ourselves, since September 11th  Have we had any further terror attacks on our airways on flights that originated domestically? Note: that the Richard Reid Shoe Bomb incident and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's Underwear bomb incident both occurred on flights which originated overseas. Are there longer lines and more inconvenience when we travel? The ultimate question is:  Are our airways safer? The answer of course is yes.

My point is that the focus of the dialogue needs to be on making the process for ensuring our safety more efficient and safer instead of a method to gain political advantage or face time with the media. Whether that means privatizing most TSA functions like John Stossel suggests or finding  more effective and less intrusive technology like Coulter blabs about. All these things should be considered, but let us not blast the guys tasked with protecting us, especially when, thus far, they have done a fairly decent job.

The Immigration Problem, Requires An American Solution.

Last night, MSNBC aired a Town Hall Format discussion called Beyond Borderlines hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell which tackled the issue of illegal immigration. The event was hosted by the University of San Diego and invited several immigration reform proponents, celebrities, an Immigration Enforcement Director and even actual illegal immigrants on stage to discuss their views.

For the most part, the presentation was honest and fair with special care to ensure that all sides of the argument had an opportunity to openly support their positions.  O'Donnell made a case for illegal immigrants with the presentation of an illegal immigrant who was brought here by his family as a child. He explained how this kid had attended US schools, and universities and obtained a degree in business management but was now unable to seek employment in his field of study because of his legal status.  He then presented the question to viewers about whether in this special case, the young non-documented man could be considered an American.

O'Donnell also presented the story about a meat packing town in Nebraska which has seen a recent flood mexican immigrants and experienced job displacements and increases in costs for emergency services, school lunch programs, education and even increases in criminal activity.  They also took a trip in history with the story of the Irish immigration experience, and the gateway that was Ellis Island in New York all the way to the culmination of Irish acceptance in mainstream America with the election of President Kennedy. 

I think both sides of the debate presented legitimate arguments in support of their cause, but the truth is that illegal immigration in this country remains very sensitive topic for many Americans.  Like many of our countries previous conundrums, there is an opportunity to flex some ingenious muscle and show some genuine American grit.  The type of emblematic problem solving capabilities that made us the first atomic superpower, won us the race to moon and made is the victors of a decades long cold war.  

Ok, I may be fluffing the issues a bit, but if all the coverage over Arizona's legislation and the recent supreme court decision is any indication of how relevant this topic is, then there may some merit to my fluffing. What kind of American solution will it take to fix this American problem? 

First, this problem will require general acceptance that a paradigm shift is required by all before we find deliverance. The "Send'em All Back-ers" and "Amnesty-Callers" have to understand that their approach is exclusionary and out of date.  Sending them all back, is simply unrealistic, and offering amnesty to all really is a slap in the face to our laws and by affiliation, every law abiding citizen of our country.  A true solution will have to incorporate ideas and concessions by both sides.  In our country, changing popular ideologies is a painstakingly slow process. Do you recall the abolition of slavery, woman's suffrage, and the modern civil rights movement?

Second, we cannot condone violations of our federal laws, but as Americans, we're inheritors of a country founded on immigration and descendants of people who sailed entires oceans for the opportunity to find prosperity.  For this reason, though we cannot condone illegal immigration we should understand why it occurs.  After all, illegal immigrants are here because even the most low-paying, low-skilled job is a substantial upgrade in the quality of life back at home.

With those two statements out of the way, here's how we fix it.  Cut $50 Billion dollars out of the defense budget and use it to hire more border agents and increase measures to secure the border.  Stopping the influx of illegal immigrants at the border is crucial.  Congress has already been presented with an option to cut the defense budget by $100 Billion.  This simply redirects some of that money towards immigration.  Sure, it takes $50 Billion away from the overall savings reduction on our deficit, but it is for a cause that will likely have large support from the voting public. That in itself may be enough political leverage to get both Democrats and the GOP to agree on the allocation.

Next, we have to address the illegal immigrant population already within our borders.  Americans have legitimate concerns about the dangerous criminals that have made it into our cities.  The gang violence and its connections to the Mexican drug cartels is well documented in cities like El Paso, TX and Phoenix, AZ.  However, this is strictly a law enforcement issue. We need to empower these law enforcement agencies with funding and technology to enforce existing federal laws, and when I say "we" this especially refers to Obama's Administration and US Attorney's Office.  This presents another dilemma.

Arizona passed legislation  this past year that sent everyone across the country into a frenzy. Its true that the law simply enforces existing laws but some citizens, especially those with hispanic features, feared that they would be experience harassment by the authorities. How do you get these people on board with  increasing the crackdown on illegal immigrants?  My suggestion is to offer a pathway to citizenship that is comprehensive.  I know, I know, all my conservative friends are removing me from their Facebook friends list at this point, but wait.

Illegal immigrants are already here, they are earning tax free salaries and sending billions of dollars back into Mexico virtually supporting significant percentages of the southern country's economy.  If we offer these individuals conditional amnesty we can ease the economic burden illegal aliens case on our economy.  The conditions would be that they would have to prove that they've been in this country for more than five years. They would have to register with the federal government and submit to fingerprint scans, and background checks domestically and from their country of origin. As penalty for entering the country illegally they will forfeit all income taxes paid according to their rate of taxation and are not entitled to any tax refunds or unemployment benefits for 5 years.  Place a 10% tariff on money sent into Mexico.

If the number of illegal immigrants really is 12 million and only half that amount participate in this amnesty program that's 6 million people providing practically free revenue to the Federal Government for at least five years.  This could help offset some of that health care bill cost and possibly even contribute the deficit reduction.  Not to mention that it creates a legal tax paying low-skilled, low-cost work force to perform jobs that most Americans are unwilling to do anyway.

I'm pretty sure my idea may seem simplistic, but I'm hoping it gets some ideas flowing so that the good ones trickle up to our lawmakers.  What are you ideas?

Tips to Watching Cable News Shows

Mathews, Olberman, Maddow

There is a good chance the historic nature of the last Presidential race transformed many politically idle citizens into active participants. At first, reading an Op-Ed piece in the local newspaper was enough to assuage the thirst caused by your political angst. Eventually, to escape the daily drudgery of the typical "day at the office" some discovered the quenching delight provided by all the news agency websites. Finally, when your friends and family are no longer lured to the bait you set to trick them into a charged debate on the "issues"; the only thing that will satiate your desire for human discourse are cable news shows.

Beck and O'Reilly

Shows like Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and Keith Olberman are pseudo-interactive in the sense that they're speaking to you and you may even actually respond, but guess what? They can't hear you! I'll confess my personal addiction to these cable news show. And the political inclinations of the host has little bearing on which shows I'll watch. In fact, the only reason I may choose to watch one show over another is because some of them hit the airwaves at the same time.  I thank God for the advent of the DVR.

So if you've finally admitted that you're also addicted to cable new shows then you have taken an enormous step. Actually, it's pretty much the only step required to confirm that you haven't completely lost your wits when you find yourself talking back to the head on your brand spanking new, forty-two inch LED-TV. The rest of this blog will consist of quick tips to make sure you don't become another lemming of the mainstream media. You know, an antidote against the "purple kool-aid" if you will oblige me.

Tip #1:  It's Not Really a Cable "News" Show

Understanding this fact is vital, as this narrows the scope to shows I've already mentioned.  Although the subject matter addressed by the hosts are in fact current events, they aren't actually delivering "News".  You may even notice during some of their live broadcasts that if there is an urgent newsflash or update on some real-time event, they usually cut to an anchor-person on the actual newsroom. Some may argue that these shows are in fact news programs and that they are simply presenting the news in an editorial format, but I feel the need to highlight their distinction from traditional newscasts.

Traditional newscasts are supposed to be objective (yeah right!) and intended to transmit the facts as they are perceived at the moment (don't confuse this with accuracy).  Opinions are usually deferred to subject experts or witnesses, but never offered by the journalist/anchor. When we watch the likes of O'Reilly, Beck or Maddow, their personal opinions (or their Producer's) are brought to the forefront of the analysis. The may allow for countering opinions by guests and pundits but the exchange is tilted towards the idealistic inclination of the host at all times.

For viewers, this should trigger a natural instinct to scrutinize everything that is said.  Don't simply accept what comes out of your 7.1 Dolby Surround Sound system as fact simply because your political inclinations are in-tune to that of your favorite host.  We've got to keep them honest.  Check your facts.  Follow up and read a little more about the subject matter.  Consider at least three different sources before you jump on any bandwagons.  Guys like O'Reilly and Matthews often test the knowledge of their guest with political or historical trivia to make sure they're not just smacking their lips for the sake of air time.  We should do the same.  So before you make their opinions your own, or even worse, write a blog about it, make sure you research, read and read and read some more.

Tip #2:  Don't Get Angry

Have you ever stood up from your couch and yelled: "That Rachel Maddow is such a bitch"? Or perhaps you've announced: "Bill O'Reilly can be the biggest asshole sometimes". Certainly your spouse or mate has asked you the inevitable question; "If you hate them so much, why do you always watch the show"?  If you're nodding your head right now then tip number two is definitely for you. You have to understand that the main reason you are hooked to these shows is because you are being entertained.

Ultimately, the news network's main goal is to get you to watch their programming. For them it means better ratings and more advertising revenue. For the producers and TV personalities it means that they have to be more "in-your-face" and edgy. If they can rise an emotion out of you, especially anger, they will get you to tune in again the next day. 

People like Mathews and O'Reilly have mastered the art of challenging opponents directly. At times sincerely, but often for dramatic effect. Beck has cornered the market as a doomsayer with his predictions of impending calamity. Olberman and Maddow tend to be more sarcastic and facetious in nature. Maddow manages to remain pleasant and has obviously perfected her craft. Olberman on the other hand is obnoxious to the point of being insulting and degrading. I've questioned why he's still on the air.

The point is: Don't get angry.  If you're yelling at the TV you've become the "lowest common denominator". Essentially, you've entered the realm of the lowbrow audience that advertisers drool over because they know you're emotional and will probably buy whatever it is they are hocking with their ads.

Tip #3:  Ask Yourself: What Am I Learning?

It is perfectly acceptable to admit that these show are entertaining. But the truth is that if you're goal is strictly to be entertained, you'll get more bang for your buck with Bugs Bunny or a Jim Carey movie. We watch cable news because we also expect to learn something new. If you're a geek like me, subjects like History, Political Science, Economics and Government are as fun as any carnival ride. It is for that effect that cable news shows are at times very much like a three-ring circus.

Another way to filter the good shows from the less-good shows, is to ask yourself; What am I learning? For example, Glenn Beck will take you through very informative lessons in history to make his points about some current talking point.  You may not agree with his assertions, but you will learn a lot about things that aren't covered in your high school history text book. If you're smart, and refuse to accept his presentation of history, you will, at the very least, do your own research in an attempt to debunk him.  In any case, you will learn something.

 Bill O'Reilly has a little "Word of the Day" segment where he presents the definitions of obscure and obsolete words of the English language.  Rachel Maddow has allowed viewers to follow her as she documents her trips to Iraq and Afghanistan where she meets with locals and presents an alternative perspective to our views on foreign events.  I've yet to learn something from Keith Olberman, which is why, once again I'll admit: I've questioned why he's still on the air.

 

Tip #4:  Don't Repeat What You Hear on TV?

Don't regurgitate talking points you've heard on cable news shows and attempt to pass them off as your own. The hosts of these programs have teams of researchers, producers, assistants and teleprompters to make what they do look easy. That is not a knock on their intelligence or sincerity but an acknowledgment that these TV personalities are performing a job. They are paid to express opinions and moderate debates on their shows. They are creating a product that we consume. 

We, on the contrary, have to go to work, school or manage a household and have limited opportunities to do the research and the studying that is required to have enough data to provide quality commentary on  a breadth of different issues. For instance, Maddow and O'Reilly are very well educated and highly intelligent individuals.  The opinions they express did not develop overnight.  I'm sure they are hardened with years of experience, personal reflection and tested through numerous debates. They have remarkable credibility and are often recognized not only by their peers but often by their counterparts.

That is why it would be foolish to simply incorporate their opinions in our own exchanges without baking them in our own minds first.  It could be that even after a short meditative process we may actually share the same ideas as our TV personalities, but they will be our own and not a product of watching a little too much TV.

Tip #5:  Check-In with Reality

This one is short and sweet. If you're kids refer to Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow as "Uncle Bill" and "Auntie Rachel" or if you gained twelve pounds because you didn't leave the couch until after election day; Then you are not just watching way too many cable news shows, you're watching way too much TV.  

Get off your butt, go play with your kids and fondle your wife.  Get some air and do some exercise.  Ultimately, TV isn't good for your physical health anyway. Don't worry, O'Reilly will be there when you return and Beck will find another crisis that will threaten to destroy the universe.

Conclusion

I'll end this list here for now. I'm pretty sure it will grow as I get some feedback or discover some more on my own. I hope you have enjoyed this list. Feel free to suggest some ideas of your own

Free Trade Agreements in Asia, Good or Bad?

Ever since Bill Clinton put his presidential seal on NAFTA back in 1994, the media occasionally revisits the topic.  The usual parade of nominal experts will march past our television screens delving into the pros and cons of the agreement.  Of course we can't do without the local reporter's interview with a former union worker whose job in the textile industry was shipped across the southern border into Mexico. We might also hear from a prominent environmentalist reflecting on how the use of pesticides by Mexican farmers put our nation's food supply at risk or the pro-immigrant community organizer who is concerned over the exploitation of Mexican workers in the makeshift sweatshops that have popped up to satisfy the demand for cheap exports to the US.

Fortunately, there will be plenty of time to anatomize the agreement that has been in place for well over a decade with another blog.  I've only mentioned NAFTA as I was reminded of it during all the coverage of President Obama's recent trip to the Asian continent. Our President has made pit-stops in India, Indonesia and is currently in Seoul, South Korea for the G20 summit.  He will also make a stop in Japan later this week and a few other countries before the tour is over.  His focus at all the stops thus far has been to weaken restrictions and open up trade doors for American ventures into emerging Asian markets.

All this makes sense of course after the electoral "shellacking" that Obama's party experienced during the mid-term elections. It is obvious that the calls for more jobs and more growth are still fresh on his mind as he appears to be putting forth a good faith effort to respond to his fellow countrymen.  This evening the conservative press has jumped all over the story that the administration as failed to seal a trade deal with South Korea. The sealing of this deal was expected to coincide with Obama's visit with Prime Minister Lee Myung-Bak today in Seoul.  Of course, this is a blatant attempt by journalist to magnify any perceived weakness in Obama's international influence after the setbacks at home.  Everyone knows that a deal will be finalized, at least in practice, if not by law (a trade deal would require US Congressional approval) in a relatively short amount of time.

The real question is; Would a free trade agreement with Asia help our weakened economy? In my humble opinion the answer is; Yes! And I'll give you my reasons. First, it is hard to quantify exactly how much existing trade agreements like NAFTA have helped our economy.  Some of the best efforts at measuring its effects (like Congressional Budget Office reports) show that the results are not as enthusiastic as the proponents of these agreements would like to admit. That is not necessarily a bad thing since one could at least make the argument that NAFTA was not a horrible idea like many of it's detractors claim.  Even modest reports indicate that, minus a few specific industries like textile, for the most part, NAFTA was beneficial to our overall economy. Again, I don't want to get into specifics about NAFTA, but I need the comparison to make my point that trade agreements aren't bad but the question remains; Are they good?

The second reason is that dozens of trade agreements already in place between Asian nations will make the Asian Bloc the world's largest economic bloc at some point over the next five years. It will be larger than NAFTA and the European Union as well. This means that unless we put a tap into that Asian keg of trade goodies we will find ourselves sipping light beer (or Canadian Moonshine) and stale bar nuts on the unemployment lines back home.

A third reason is that over the years, as Asian economies have taken on many of the manufacturing jobs that moved away from industrialized nations in the west, they have created and expanding middle class.  In countries like India and China. Combined, that new middle class is about 600 million members strong. As we have learned in our economy, consumption is driven by a large middle class.  Asian governments are very much aware of this and have taken great measures to ensure that their middle class consumes home grown products by minimizing their consumption of foreign exports resulting in the enormous trade deficits that are now all over the news.

Tapping into that Asian middle class will prove crucial to creating or maintaining jobs in the US. Companies like Ford here in the US have already made public comments about how important it will be to their businesses to gain access to the Asian marketplace. McDonald's, KFC, and other restaurant chains have found enormous success in Asia which proves that Asian consumers have a growing appetite for western commerce.

Even if Obama can secure a significant trade agreement, let's be real. We're probably not going to see a flood of old GM plants suddenly spring back to life. In fact the US will probably have to lift some of our own tariffs on Asian imports like the current 35% tariff on cheap tires and radials from China.  This of course will invite stiff opposition from the big labor unions, and smaller auto supplier businesses that are already feeling the economic crunch due to the near collapse of the auto industry in Detroit.

Obama will surely face some setbacks....correction! Obama has already faced some setbacks.  As I am writing this blog, news about the President's failure in gathering the support of other G20 countries to push China to boost its currency value has surfaced.  Again, no surprise here.  China is well aware of it own mass and displacement in the global economy.  They have been more willing to flex their muscle as of late. For example, they recently banned the shipment of rare minerals used by Japanese computer chip manufacturers over some minor territorial dispute.  Not to mention the most of these G20 countries now see feasibility in bridging the gap of economic prowess with the United States, even if they have to hitch their wagons to China's for now.

Lastly, I believe the most important reason to support the President as he seeks these trade agreements is that it's pro-business.  Most of his policies, like tax hikes, Health Insurance requirements, financial reform, are mostly anti-business.  Now he is seeking to open up new markets in pursuit of creating jobs back home.  The reality is that with his fiscal policy, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, and the all the stimulus initiatives have failed to spark job growth. Therefore, foreign policy is quite honestly, the next option on the list.

"...kicking a man while he is down".

I am surprised that conservative media and even more surprised that the liberal media has been critical of the timeliness of this recent trip overseas.  Some have even questioned whether or not the enormous cost of the trip is justifiable in the face of all the economic trouble back home and the talk of reducing government spending.

In this case, I think everyone should support his efforts and avoid the temptation of "kicking a man while he is down".  Even if his attempts at seeking pro-business and free market opportunities seem tardy, they are, after all, a subliminal admission that his prior positions were not serviceable. Whether his effort spurs the growth of a small industry or only creates a few thousand American jobs, it is a step in right direction. The roadblocks Obama has already encountered in Korea and the G20 summit should serve to galvanize the opposition to facilitate policy creation that will fortify our international economic presence. It surely should not to politicized into ammunition to be used in 2012.

As Usual...It's Politics as Usual.

As the dust of last week's mid-term election sets over the American political landscape, the outline of what we can expect over the next two years begins to emerge. To the chagrin of most observers, myself included, the landscape remains very much unchanged. Sure there are some new faces on the field, and the voting public on the rails of the Tea Party train sent a clear, if not deafening, message back to Washington, DC that it demands real change.

However, just like the unfulfilled promises of change and transparency that were seemingly ubiquitous during the Presidential campaigns back in 2008; The prospects for this new congress to bring forth any real change are dubious at best.  Although the arrival of a few new players like Rand Paul or Marco Rubio may prove to be influential over a long senatorial term, it will take some time to build up the kind of clout that can get things done in Washington. With the "Old Lions" like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid steering the dialogue, these abecedarian politicians will have to overcome a few hindrances but their potential is kicky for many sideline observers.

This may all sound like a familiar rambling full of cynical overtones made popular by cable news shows, but to quote an anonymous author; "Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows". We have yet to set a precedent to usher us away from the cynicism regarding Congress and its lethargic process of  governing. As usual, we can expect "Politics as Usual" from our elected officials. Yet for the first time in my conscience existence there is a reason to be optimistic about our government.

Even though the political landscape remains the same, the "air" around us has changed dramatically.  We are are figuratively scrapping the "bottom of the barrel" in terms of our economy. Unemployment remains steady at 9.5 percent. Foreign economies are on a competitive run with countries like India and China emerging as power players over the last decade. Our government is printing money like its a Hallmark card factory during Christmas season. There is the $700 billion dollar stimulus bill which provided meager results and the $300 billion dollar Health Care bill that was rammed through last March and remains unpopular to most of the country with the exception of the ruling party in government.

This "air" has left a bad taste in the mouths of voters

This "air" has left a bad taste in the mouths of voters, evidenced by the turn-around in voter sentiment that halted the Liberal cavalry charge in Washington.  The question that remains is; What can we expect from the new session of congress? Well most of us are crossing our fingers and hoping for the best, but the "air" that hovers over our political landscape may drive the agenda more so than the politicians themselves. The Democrats have reset an long lost practice in governing when they picked up momentum in 2008. They played the game with a "one-term" strategy and they were successful in advancing their agenda.

There are certain areas that have been historically untouchable when the discussion of budget cuts arises. Defense spending, Social Security, Medicare are at the top of that list, but like I've stated earlier, voters have demanded change and they expect it to come in the form of reductions in government spending.  This means that these previous untouchable programs no longer carry that protective label.  They are all up for grabs.

Republicans now find themselves in new territory. They can choose to go on the counter-offensive and seek to repeal the health care bill and fight to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, further entrenching themselves in the ages-old battle between the left and right, or they can steer the discourse in a new direction. The problem with the former is that Democrats appealed to the social conscience of our country when drafting the health care bill.

They sandwiched provisions like, preventing doctors from investing or owning interest in health care companies and the requirement that insurance companies accept individuals with pre-existing conditions.  There are many more provisions, some noble, some not, that will make the repeal of this bill almost impossible and convert it into another seemingly untouchable entitlement program. By passing this bill, Democrats put it all on the table and risked any longevity in control of the government but they made great strides in advancing their agenda.

It didn't matter that their policies were unpopular or that they lacked a single shred of bi-partisan support. If passing the health care bill and financial reform by brute force blitz attack is the measure by which the work of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership will be gauged, then we all have to admit that they were surprisingly efficient in getting their job done. Liberals understood that having an unstoppable majority in congress was an extremely rare occurrence and not only did they capitalize on the opportunity but they did so in an irreversible manner.  They lost their overpowering control of congress but not their ability to influence decision making during the next session.

For Republicans all of this means that any talk about turning back the clock is simply wasted breath. Folks are tired of politicians and all their childish bickering.  Most people are prepared to face the future like real adults.  We simply want our elected officials to make the right decisions, not just the popular ones. Yesterday, President Obama's fiscal commission released their preliminary proposals to help the country climb out of the giant debt hole it is currently in.

The proposal offers some pretty drastic suggestions that total $4 trillion dollars in deficit cuts. Suggestions like cutting $100 billion in defense spending, increasing the retirement age, freezing salaries for federal employees, reducing increments in Social Security benefits, reducing pension benefits for federal employees, cutting overhead expenditures by reducing government contractors and even raising taxes. The proposal no longer considers many of these programs untouchable.  Republicans along with Democrats may now be forced to make some tough decisions.

My hopes are that they will play the game with no eyes on re-election.  That they will sacrifice longevity in order to achieve correct results now. This of course would need to come at a price. For the elected officials it may be a one shot deal. For us, it may mean a tightening of our belts, perhaps higher taxes, continued unemployment trouble, and longer recovery time.  But if we have learned anything during this economic crisis it's that uncontrollable growth is not always a good thing over a long period of time. That scaling back and living within our means may not be the most attractive option but it is usually the most prudent.

My message to the GOP is:  You have an opportunity to be heroes.  You can transform a country of "teenagers with credit cards" into a country of responsible adults.  If you accomplish this, you will not receive recognition, at least not right away, but history will look back upon the 112th Session of Congress with kind eyes. You can be the group that gets our economy back on track and increases the distance between us and the emerging economies.  Yours can be a legacy of truly moving across the isle and putting a kibosh on the stalemate of idealism that is the sludge in the cog-wheels of government. Yes, all this can be yours if you choose not to fall into old habits and, as usual, play "Politics as Usual".