The Obama administration has been quietly plotting new controls on the Internet, including an ill-advised scheme to issue everyone a single Internet ID.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced that the government is drafting a plan called the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" to centralize efforts to create a "trusted" identity eco-system.
Locke said that one of the goals of the program is to reduce or eliminate the need for people to memorize multiple passwords.
The plan will rely on private identity providers, rather than government to issue ids and run the system.
There are several problems with the Obama's Administration plan:
First, having one id is not a good idea. Why is identity theft becoming such a big problem? Because all of your financial information is tied to one government issued id called a Social Security number. Once a criminal gets a hold of that, they can unlock you entire financial life. Having multiple ids enables you to segment your life and reduce the overall damage that can be done if one of the ids is compromised.
Second, there are already multiple identity providers on the internet whose ids can be used across web sites. They include Microsoft Live, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.
Third, There are already open standards for authentication (OpenID) and authorization (OAuth) that are widely used by these identity providers and various web sites.
Forth, since the government is sponsoring the system, they will undoubtedly mandate that the companies running the system provide access so that the government can spy on our activities.
As usual, the government is claiming that there is a problem when no real problem exists, for the sole purpose of gaining power and control over yet another aspect of our lives. As always, the end result will be the exact opposite of the government's stated goal -- internet privacy will be completely destroyed.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Rick Santorum is no Conservative Savior
Rick Santorum's virtual tie in Iowa has propelled him into the national spotlight overnight.
Just three weeks ago, Santorum was polling in the low to middle single digits in Iowa. Many people questioned why he was even in the race. I thought that he was probably running for Vice President -- someone who could give Mitt Romney credibility with social conservatives.
Now that Santorum has emerged as the latest front-runner among the GOP Presidential contenders, it's time to take a close look at who Rick Santorum really is.
Santorum was born in 1958 in West Virginia. His parents were government employees who worked at a VA Hospital in neighboring Pennsylvania. After graduating from college with a Law Degree, Santorum went to work for the government as a legislative aide to a Pennsylvania State Senator. He later served on a Pennsylvania government transportation committee.
Santorum was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990. In 1994 he was elected to the Senate as part of the Gingrich revolution. In 1996, Santorum served as Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform and he helped steer that important piece of legislation through the Senate.
However, during the Bush the administration, Santorum helped lead the GOP away from their principles, by concocting all kinds of government spending programs designed to create new government dependent constituencies that would be loyal to the GOP.
Rick Santorum voted for the first new federal entitlement program since LBJ (Medicare Part D), the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history (the failed No Child Left Behind), the largest pork barrel infrastructure bill in history (including the infamous "bridge to nowhere"), thousands of earmarks, Bush's two ill-conceived wars in the Middle East, and much more. Santorum and his buddies turned a balance budget into huge deficits and set the stage for the Democrats to regain control of the Congress and White House.
Rick Santorum is the poster boy for everything that was wrong with the GOP during the Bush administration. As a result, he got booted out of office in 2006 along with the rest of the GOP Congress. He lost to a conservative Democrat by a whopping 59% to 41%.
During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill from a Democrat Congress because it contained 150 earmarks. During the Bush Administration, Santorum helped to Sheppard a transportation bill through a GOP Congress that contained over 1,000 earmarks (including the "bridge to nowhere"). Bush signed it. This alone should tell us all how much so-called "conservatives" like Santorum have veered off of the course set for us by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Santorum also endorsed liberal GOP Senator Arlen Specter over his conservative challenger Pat Toomey in 2004. Specter won the primary and the election. Thanks to Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter was around to cast the 60th and deciding vote for Obamacare in the Senate.
I've watched every GOP debate during this election cycle. One thing that really strikes me is that of all of the current GOP Presidential candidates, Rick Santorum seems to have learned the least from Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Bush, Santorum seems to believe that the U.S. government can force a western civilization on a country like Afghanistan, where no reasonable civilization has ever existed before.
Earlier this week Rush Limbaugh was bellyaching about people questioning Santorum's conservative credentials. Limbaugh stated that "conservatives" actually do believe in big government -- just not the same kind of big government that liberals believe in. Oh really???
So sure, if our new definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to conserve the growth of government over the last 80 years and the corrupt cronyism that it spawned, then Santorum is indeed a "conservative".
However, if our definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to conserve the Constitution, limited government, the free market, and our individual liberty, then Santorum isn't even close to fitting the bill.
I hope and pray that the good people of New Hampshire take a hard look at Rick Santorum in the context of their state motto -- "Live Free or Die" -- and render their verdict accordingly.
Just three weeks ago, Santorum was polling in the low to middle single digits in Iowa. Many people questioned why he was even in the race. I thought that he was probably running for Vice President -- someone who could give Mitt Romney credibility with social conservatives.
Now that Santorum has emerged as the latest front-runner among the GOP Presidential contenders, it's time to take a close look at who Rick Santorum really is.
Santorum was born in 1958 in West Virginia. His parents were government employees who worked at a VA Hospital in neighboring Pennsylvania. After graduating from college with a Law Degree, Santorum went to work for the government as a legislative aide to a Pennsylvania State Senator. He later served on a Pennsylvania government transportation committee.
Santorum was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990. In 1994 he was elected to the Senate as part of the Gingrich revolution. In 1996, Santorum served as Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform and he helped steer that important piece of legislation through the Senate.
However, during the Bush the administration, Santorum helped lead the GOP away from their principles, by concocting all kinds of government spending programs designed to create new government dependent constituencies that would be loyal to the GOP.
Rick Santorum voted for the first new federal entitlement program since LBJ (Medicare Part D), the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history (the failed No Child Left Behind), the largest pork barrel infrastructure bill in history (including the infamous "bridge to nowhere"), thousands of earmarks, Bush's two ill-conceived wars in the Middle East, and much more. Santorum and his buddies turned a balance budget into huge deficits and set the stage for the Democrats to regain control of the Congress and White House.
Rick Santorum is the poster boy for everything that was wrong with the GOP during the Bush administration. As a result, he got booted out of office in 2006 along with the rest of the GOP Congress. He lost to a conservative Democrat by a whopping 59% to 41%.
During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill from a Democrat Congress because it contained 150 earmarks. During the Bush Administration, Santorum helped to Sheppard a transportation bill through a GOP Congress that contained over 1,000 earmarks (including the "bridge to nowhere"). Bush signed it. This alone should tell us all how much so-called "conservatives" like Santorum have veered off of the course set for us by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Santorum also endorsed liberal GOP Senator Arlen Specter over his conservative challenger Pat Toomey in 2004. Specter won the primary and the election. Thanks to Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter was around to cast the 60th and deciding vote for Obamacare in the Senate.
I've watched every GOP debate during this election cycle. One thing that really strikes me is that of all of the current GOP Presidential candidates, Rick Santorum seems to have learned the least from Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Bush, Santorum seems to believe that the U.S. government can force a western civilization on a country like Afghanistan, where no reasonable civilization has ever existed before.
Earlier this week Rush Limbaugh was bellyaching about people questioning Santorum's conservative credentials. Limbaugh stated that "conservatives" actually do believe in big government -- just not the same kind of big government that liberals believe in. Oh really???
So sure, if our new definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to conserve the growth of government over the last 80 years and the corrupt cronyism that it spawned, then Santorum is indeed a "conservative".
However, if our definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to conserve the Constitution, limited government, the free market, and our individual liberty, then Santorum isn't even close to fitting the bill.
I hope and pray that the good people of New Hampshire take a hard look at Rick Santorum in the context of their state motto -- "Live Free or Die" -- and render their verdict accordingly.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Draconian EPA Regulations To Cause Rolling Blackouts
Obama is poised to shut down 8% of the coal-fired electrical plants in the country.
8%. Next year.
A disproportionate number of the plants will be in Texas.
When the blackouts occur, who will the left blame? Those evil power companies.
It will be "obvious" to all that they need to be nationalized.
After that happens, we'll never have stable electricity again.
It's yet another milestone on Obama's road to banana republic status...
8%. Next year.
A disproportionate number of the plants will be in Texas.
When the blackouts occur, who will the left blame? Those evil power companies.
It will be "obvious" to all that they need to be nationalized.
After that happens, we'll never have stable electricity again.
It's yet another milestone on Obama's road to banana republic status...
Saturday, October 15, 2011
The Euro Crisis in a Nutshell
There has been a lot of hand-wringing on why Europe is poised to send the world economy into a tailspin.
Let's cut through the nonsense and tell it like it is.
In a nutshell, a few years ago, the frugal Germans decided to enter into a single currency agreement with the profligate Geeks, in addition to other countries.
The Greeks did what they always do -- spend well beyond their means.
Now the Germans are left holding the bag.
The current crisis is all about the German population not wanting to take responsibility for the mess that their politicians created.
The only way out of this mess is for the German government to own up to their responsibilities and correct their past mistakes. To do this they need to:
1.) Inflate the Euro to bail out the Greeks. Yes, this will cause people in Germany and other Euro countries to take an economic hit, but this is what they signed up for by agreeing to a monetary union with the socialist Greeks.
2.) Get out of the Euro and restore the Mark.
Sadly, the cowardly politicians in Germany are not likely to do either. As a result, the world economy could come collapsing down in a magnitude that we have never seen before.
Let's cut through the nonsense and tell it like it is.
In a nutshell, a few years ago, the frugal Germans decided to enter into a single currency agreement with the profligate Geeks, in addition to other countries.
The Greeks did what they always do -- spend well beyond their means.
Now the Germans are left holding the bag.
The current crisis is all about the German population not wanting to take responsibility for the mess that their politicians created.
The only way out of this mess is for the German government to own up to their responsibilities and correct their past mistakes. To do this they need to:
1.) Inflate the Euro to bail out the Greeks. Yes, this will cause people in Germany and other Euro countries to take an economic hit, but this is what they signed up for by agreeing to a monetary union with the socialist Greeks.
2.) Get out of the Euro and restore the Mark.
Sadly, the cowardly politicians in Germany are not likely to do either. As a result, the world economy could come collapsing down in a magnitude that we have never seen before.
Friday, September 30, 2011
America's Growing Bromodrosis Crisis
A new study shows that 1/3rd of Americans (more than 33%) have Bromodrosis -- stinky feet. Half of them have extremely stinky feet.
Stinky feet are not only a personal issue. They effect a person's career, social life, and in fact, their very existence.
It's a huge epidemic that is poised to destroy our civilization.
Surveys show that a large segment of Americans are prejudiced against people with stinky feet.
"A lot of people at work have stinky feet," said Lance, a computer programmer from Seattle. "I can't stand working with them. I do everything possible to avoid them".
Yet, only 9% of Americans will tell someone if they have stinky feet.
Sally, a marketing assistant in Chicago concurs: "Some of my best friends have stinky feet. I feel sorry for them, but I just can't bring myself to tell them".
Why is it fair that people with naturally odorless feet have an advantage in life over people who's toe cheese smells like a rotting dead skunk?
The rich can afford Order-Eaters, foot powers and other treatments. But what about the poor? How about the homeless???? What about the socially dysfunctional, who don't realize just how much their feet really stink?
Aren't these people entitled to the same odorless feet as the rich?
Who will hire a person with stinky feet? How can they earn a living? How can they find dignity in their lives???
A person with stinky feet cannot truly be free.
It's very clear that the heartless free market won't solve this problem.
Leaving our Bromodrosis brethren to fend for themselves is not what America is all about.
The government must take action. It must take action now.
First, the government must immediately create a Department of Olfactory Wellness that will declare a new war on stinky feet and eradicate this plague on society once and for all.
Second, the government must also immediately place a tax on people who have naturally odorless feet and redistribute it to the wretched refuse so that can they achieve foot odor equality.
Third, the government needs to outlaw all forms of discrimination against people with stinky feet. It's just not right for someone to lose a job opportunity, let alone a sexual encounter because his or her feet smell like a pound of fermenting cabbage.
Only when we solve this dire problem, can all Americans truly be free.
Stinky feet are not only a personal issue. They effect a person's career, social life, and in fact, their very existence.
It's a huge epidemic that is poised to destroy our civilization.
Surveys show that a large segment of Americans are prejudiced against people with stinky feet.
"A lot of people at work have stinky feet," said Lance, a computer programmer from Seattle. "I can't stand working with them. I do everything possible to avoid them".
Yet, only 9% of Americans will tell someone if they have stinky feet.
Sally, a marketing assistant in Chicago concurs: "Some of my best friends have stinky feet. I feel sorry for them, but I just can't bring myself to tell them".
Why is it fair that people with naturally odorless feet have an advantage in life over people who's toe cheese smells like a rotting dead skunk?
The rich can afford Order-Eaters, foot powers and other treatments. But what about the poor? How about the homeless???? What about the socially dysfunctional, who don't realize just how much their feet really stink?
Aren't these people entitled to the same odorless feet as the rich?
Who will hire a person with stinky feet? How can they earn a living? How can they find dignity in their lives???
A person with stinky feet cannot truly be free.
It's very clear that the heartless free market won't solve this problem.
Leaving our Bromodrosis brethren to fend for themselves is not what America is all about.
The government must take action. It must take action now.
First, the government must immediately create a Department of Olfactory Wellness that will declare a new war on stinky feet and eradicate this plague on society once and for all.
Second, the government must also immediately place a tax on people who have naturally odorless feet and redistribute it to the wretched refuse so that can they achieve foot odor equality.
Third, the government needs to outlaw all forms of discrimination against people with stinky feet. It's just not right for someone to lose a job opportunity, let alone a sexual encounter because his or her feet smell like a pound of fermenting cabbage.
Only when we solve this dire problem, can all Americans truly be free.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Obama's Tax on Soup Kitchens and the Poor
President Obama unveiled his Son of Stimulus bill this week.
For the most part, the bill was a lightweight version of his previously failed "stimulus" bill. It proposes to penalize productive people and hand the money over to support temporary jobs in the government bureaucracy.
As was the case with the first "stimulus" bill, the new bill features even more government micromanagement in the form of "targeted tax cuts" and government-centered spending initiatives.
However, what is really interesting in this bill is Obama's assault on charities that help that poor.
The President's new bill will phase out charitable contributions for couples making over 250,000 a year.
Obama likes to rail against millionaires and billionaires, but working couples that make $250,000 are not not millionaires or billionaires. Obama is so obsessed with harming these people that he is willing to sacrifice soup kitchens and other charities that help the poor and homeless in the process.
Obama's proposals will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most.
Who does Obama's program hurt most? The "rich" or the "poor"?
The answer is obvious. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't really care about the poor. Like all leftists, he only cares about punishing the successful.
For the most part, the bill was a lightweight version of his previously failed "stimulus" bill. It proposes to penalize productive people and hand the money over to support temporary jobs in the government bureaucracy.
As was the case with the first "stimulus" bill, the new bill features even more government micromanagement in the form of "targeted tax cuts" and government-centered spending initiatives.
However, what is really interesting in this bill is Obama's assault on charities that help that poor.
The President's new bill will phase out charitable contributions for couples making over 250,000 a year.
Obama likes to rail against millionaires and billionaires, but working couples that make $250,000 are not not millionaires or billionaires. Obama is so obsessed with harming these people that he is willing to sacrifice soup kitchens and other charities that help the poor and homeless in the process.
Obama's proposals will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most.
Who does Obama's program hurt most? The "rich" or the "poor"?
The answer is obvious. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't really care about the poor. Like all leftists, he only cares about punishing the successful.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Rick Perry is Right: Social Security Really is a Ponzi Scheme
Rick Perry's comments during this week's GOP debate at the Reagan library has caused quite a stir in the liberal media.
During the debate, Governor Perry defended the words in his book, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme".
After the debate, the "analysis" on MSNBC was truly fun to watch as every commentator sat shelled shocked over the fact that a politician would dare to use these words to describe America's most sacred welfare program.
The only person on the panel who had a clue about what might be going on was Ed Schultz who at one point questioned whether or not whether young people would stick with Obama or jump on the Perry bandwagon.
Unlike the political and media establishment in this country, young people understand that they are going to get the short end of the Social Security "inter-generational compact". Schultz surprisingly realized that Perry's message might resonant with young people.
Let's take a quick look at the Social Security system and see if Perry might be on to something.
The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system.
The people receiving Social Security benefits today are getting back on average 2 1/2 to 3 times what they paid in. They are also generally strong proponents of the system.
Today, Social Security is paying out more every year than it takes it. We are borrowing money from foreigners, like the Chinese and Saudis to pay current benefits. As the huge Baby Boom generation retires, the amount of debt we incur each year will quickly escalate.
So, what happens when my generation starts to retire in 15 to 20 years and what will happen to my kids?
We will all be left holding the bag.
There is a financial MODEL that describes this. The model is called a Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme or a Bernie Madoff scheme. The people who get it in early make out like bandits and the people who get it late get screwed.
That is exactly how the Social Security system will play out.
The fact is that the Social Security is a pay-as-you-go welfare system that transfers money from young, struggling families to relatively well-to-do retired people. There isn't any "trust fund". The words "trust fund" are used to describe a mountain of debt. A mountain of debt is NOT a trust fund. It's a mountain of debt. Today, the mountain of debt in the Social Security system is so great that it cannot be paid.
Peel away the emotion, the Orwellian language about the "trust fund", and the other political rhetoric, and just look at the financial facts. Then this all becomes very clear.
Rick Perry is absolutely right and I am actually impressed that a politician would tell the truth about this. It's truly amazing.
The big question is what can be done?
Long term, people need to be able to save for their own retirements. Social Security needs to be taken back to it's roots as a program that supplements the income of retirees who are truly poor, through no fault of their own.
Today, 25% of people over 65 have pension or investment income that places them in the "wealthy" category. They still get Social Security benefits, so long as they don't work for their income. Why should young struggling families hand money over the wealthy retired people?
They shouldn't. Means testing Social Security will go a long way to make it solvent for the future.
When Social Security was implemented, the retirement age was 65. The average life expectancy was 59 for men and 61 for women. Most people didn't live long enough to get a check. Today, the retirement age is still 65. However, life expectancy is 73 for men and 78 for women.
The numbers just don't work.
We need to gradually raise the retirement age to keep up with life expectancy.
Bravo to Perry for telling it like it is. I certainly agree with Ed Schultz that a lot of young people will find this message appealing.
The other group who should find this message appealing are wealthy retirees who are stealing from their children's and grandchildren's future. Will they finally put their selfishness aside and say: "no more"? Probably not, but we'll see.
During the debate, Governor Perry defended the words in his book, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme".
After the debate, the "analysis" on MSNBC was truly fun to watch as every commentator sat shelled shocked over the fact that a politician would dare to use these words to describe America's most sacred welfare program.
The only person on the panel who had a clue about what might be going on was Ed Schultz who at one point questioned whether or not whether young people would stick with Obama or jump on the Perry bandwagon.
Unlike the political and media establishment in this country, young people understand that they are going to get the short end of the Social Security "inter-generational compact". Schultz surprisingly realized that Perry's message might resonant with young people.
Let's take a quick look at the Social Security system and see if Perry might be on to something.
The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system.
The people receiving Social Security benefits today are getting back on average 2 1/2 to 3 times what they paid in. They are also generally strong proponents of the system.
Today, Social Security is paying out more every year than it takes it. We are borrowing money from foreigners, like the Chinese and Saudis to pay current benefits. As the huge Baby Boom generation retires, the amount of debt we incur each year will quickly escalate.
So, what happens when my generation starts to retire in 15 to 20 years and what will happen to my kids?
We will all be left holding the bag.
There is a financial MODEL that describes this. The model is called a Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme or a Bernie Madoff scheme. The people who get it in early make out like bandits and the people who get it late get screwed.
That is exactly how the Social Security system will play out.
The fact is that the Social Security is a pay-as-you-go welfare system that transfers money from young, struggling families to relatively well-to-do retired people. There isn't any "trust fund". The words "trust fund" are used to describe a mountain of debt. A mountain of debt is NOT a trust fund. It's a mountain of debt. Today, the mountain of debt in the Social Security system is so great that it cannot be paid.
Peel away the emotion, the Orwellian language about the "trust fund", and the other political rhetoric, and just look at the financial facts. Then this all becomes very clear.
Rick Perry is absolutely right and I am actually impressed that a politician would tell the truth about this. It's truly amazing.
The big question is what can be done?
Long term, people need to be able to save for their own retirements. Social Security needs to be taken back to it's roots as a program that supplements the income of retirees who are truly poor, through no fault of their own.
Today, 25% of people over 65 have pension or investment income that places them in the "wealthy" category. They still get Social Security benefits, so long as they don't work for their income. Why should young struggling families hand money over the wealthy retired people?
They shouldn't. Means testing Social Security will go a long way to make it solvent for the future.
When Social Security was implemented, the retirement age was 65. The average life expectancy was 59 for men and 61 for women. Most people didn't live long enough to get a check. Today, the retirement age is still 65. However, life expectancy is 73 for men and 78 for women.
The numbers just don't work.
We need to gradually raise the retirement age to keep up with life expectancy.
Bravo to Perry for telling it like it is. I certainly agree with Ed Schultz that a lot of young people will find this message appealing.
The other group who should find this message appealing are wealthy retirees who are stealing from their children's and grandchildren's future. Will they finally put their selfishness aside and say: "no more"? Probably not, but we'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
