Shareholders own the corporation and those owning common stock can vote on items presented to them by the board of directors. Shareholders vote on board members and it is the board of directors that sets policy, hires the corporate officers and sets their compensation. That is how it is supposed to work, but does NOT in practice in many cases.
Ownership of stock is divorced now from exercising the rights of ownership because so much stock is now held by mutual funds. Mutual fund managers are interested mostly in making as much money as possible. If management delivers, then the mutual fund managers don't exercise their rights as stock owners. They frequently buy and sell stock quickly, holding it only for a short time. They support current management most of the time. That allows management to pack the corporate boards with friends who go along to get along. Congress enacted the law creating mutual funds, and now it needs to revise the law so that the rights of shareholders receive greater protection.
Young people are killing young people in Chicago. Would second amendment supporters suggest arming everyone for self defense? When the smoke cleared, the streets would be littered with the dead. As an alternative, should the police shoot to kill? That might reduce the violence temporarily, but is not the solution.
I grew up in Chicago but it is many years since I have been back. When I lived there, Chicago was one of the most segregated cities in the country. I doubt that much has changed. I am now in Utah and Chicago is still many miles away in Illinois, but from here I think I know what the problems are. I cannot offer specific solutions but I do know that a piecemeal approach will not work. The problems that face our youth must be approached simultaneously if there is to be any hope of success.
The problems are: drugs, gangs, broken families, poor schools, guns in the wrong hands, unemployment and lack of opportunity. Why spend the effort to educate yourself if you are denied a chance to advance? Good , rewarding lives as productive members of society require good, well-paying jobs. Political and social leaders must set moral examples. Jails are overcrowded and the courts are too. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Some start life as conservatives and remain so.
Some start life as liberals and remain so.
Some start life as conservatives and change opinions as they grow older.
Some start life as liberals and change opinions as they grow older.
I am not going to insert my opinion here as who is right and who is not. All I am going to say is that education and self examination are signs of growth. Someone who will not consider other viewpoints is someone who is not able to grow and is calcified in this life. 2400 years ago, Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living.
About one month ago I had my first bout of vertigo and I didn't know what was happening. I had difficulty walking a straight line and I felt like I might fall on my face. I have osteoporosis and a fear of falling. After resisting it for 4 days, on the fifth day while at work in a hospital ER taking xrays, I asked an ER doctor what I should do. He wanted to run some tests sooner rather later. I punched out on the time clock and checked into the ER.
Two and a half hours later, I had a diagnosis and a prescription for some medication. I was told to go home and rest and that I could work the following day. I felt much better knowing that my condition was not serious. That is I felt better until I received the bill about one week later, $2600.00.
$2600.00 oh my! $2600.00 oh MY! $2600,00 OH MY!
Something new to worry about. I have both Medicare, the public option, and a Medicare supplement insurance, the private option. Medicare costs about $100 per month and the Medicare supplement which is private insurance about $50 per month. How much would they pay and how much must I pay? About 3 weeks later, I learned from the hospital that Medicare was paying about $2200.00, leaving $450 on the table still owing. We have yet to hear from the Medicare supplement insurer. Based on past performance, I estimate they will pay $10 to $100. That will leave me owing $350 plus.
If you watch TV at all, you have seen the glowing ads for Medicare supplement insurance. Sign me up they say and claim you MAY save thousands of dollars on the 20% of charges not covered by Medicare. The operative word is MAY. I MAY be struck by lighting while in a bathtub, but is it likely? NO to both. I expect to hear from the Medicare supplement insurer in the next 30 days. I am not holding my breath.
The November 2010 election will be a challenge and an opportunity. It will be a challenge since the party out of power usually gains seats in Congress. It will be an opportunity to increase Democratic majorities and make Barack's change agenda easier to achieve. If the Republicans manage to hold their own, they will increase their obstruction and Barack will be able to do little in 2011 and 2012 as both parties jockey for position. The 2010 election is critical since we cannot afford to wait two more years for reforms.
My goal is to reduce the Republicans in Congress by 25%. I don't know the exact numbers in the House, but in the Senate that would be a reduction in the Republican ranks from 40 seats to 30. It will be difficult to achieve, but well worth the doing.
Consider the 2010 election as one of the 12 labors of Hercules: the cleaning of the Augean stables in one day. Hercules diverted a river to wash the stables clean. We must channel the desire for change on election day to further cleanse Congress of corruption and indifference to the well being of the majority. We began this process in 2006 and continued it in 2008. Many in Congress have still not gotten the message.
A couple of months ago (February 2nd to be precise), I authored a posting entitled, “John Yoo A Tough Decision to Defend for the President” regarding the redemption of America’s justice system in wake of all the miscarriages of justice which occurred during the Bush Administration and in particular those pertaining to John Yoo. Yoo was Bush’s lead legal adviser authoring legal memos concerning the treatment, incarceration and trial (hearings) proceedings of Iraqi and Afghan detainees.
Following up on my past posting I’ve learned others share equally in my interest of Mr. Yoo’s all encompassing ability of embarrassing our country in the eyes of the international community. In an article posted within Hoffington Post, Mr. Martin Garbus, a Trial lawyer, authored an article entitled: “The Times May Be Changing” where he states some of the following excerpts:
Now six years after Iraq started, nearly one hundred days into the new presidency, more and more information is coming out about the involvement of the Bush people in Iraq-related criminal acts. The legal memos and the statements of tortured detainees are only the beginning of what will soon be a flood of information. The legal machinery is starting to build, case by case, a rejection of Bush’s legal theories. Today’s decision from Federal Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that those detained in Afghanistan will have access to American courts builds on the recent cases that allow Guantanamo detainees access to the federal court. Judge Bates rejected both the Bush administration’s view and the recently articulated view of President Barack Obama that habeas corpus is not available to imprisoned non-Afghans who are arrested beyond Afghanistan. We are seeing a pattern in the Washington federal courts. The judges are not shying away from tacking tough issues. The concept that a man sitting in Baghram has a right he can enforce in an American court seemed impossible a few years ago. The constant rat-a-tat of the media, with pictures of the tortured prisoners clearly influences judges along with the rest of the population. Judges respond also when the president too set a higher standard. Attorney General Eric Holder is the one who must start the criminal process against Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo and the others. He does not shy away from difficult choices, given backing that lets him know he is not alone. He can, and has, taken positions that are ahead of Obama.
Now six years after Iraq started, nearly one hundred days into the new presidency, more and more information is coming out about the involvement of the Bush people in Iraq-related criminal acts. The legal memos and the statements of tortured detainees are only the beginning of what will soon be a flood of information.
The legal machinery is starting to build, case by case, a rejection of Bush’s legal theories. Today’s decision from Federal Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that those detained in Afghanistan will have access to American courts builds on the recent cases that allow Guantanamo detainees access to the federal court. Judge Bates rejected both the Bush administration’s view and the recently articulated view of President Barack Obama that habeas corpus is not available to imprisoned non-Afghans who are arrested beyond Afghanistan.
We are seeing a pattern in the Washington federal courts. The judges are not shying away from tacking tough issues. The concept that a man sitting in Baghram has a right he can enforce in an American court seemed impossible a few years ago. The constant rat-a-tat of the media, with pictures of the tortured prisoners clearly influences judges along with the rest of the population. Judges respond also when the president too set a higher standard.
Attorney General Eric Holder is the one who must start the criminal process against Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo and the others. He does not shy away from difficult choices, given backing that lets him know he is not alone. He can, and has, taken positions that are ahead of Obama.
Attorney General Holder’s decision today is easier than it was yesterday, and as more and more stories of brutalized prisoners come out, it will get even easier, especially with our President’s recent executive order of allowing wider windows to be opened to the public through the “Freedom of Information Act.
Judge Bates, and the judges before him, including the Supreme Court, have rejected the rationale of Bush’s Attorney General and supporting lawyers that gave the President “unitary powers.”
The public should let Eric Holder and the president know they support criminal prosecution of the Bush people. This may be accomplished by contacting the Department of Justice here.
Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:
I’m not a Catholic, although I studied the religion, and believe I would have become a Catholic if I didn’t have stronger feelings towards the Christen religion I did choose.
However, I strongly disagree with Notre Dame’s decision to invite the President to speak at their commencement exercise and then follow the invitation up with highly publicized disagreements in the media, regarding the president’s pending appearance – could this be a cruel and very unbecoming way to deliver a political message?
Is it because President Obama is not a Catholic? No, since Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all spoke at Notre Dame graduation ceremonies and the school has an established tradition of having the current president speak at its commencement, extending the invitation to Obama, who is pro-choice and recently overturned the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, has caused a fierce backlash among some Catholic groups.
I strongly believe our president is not going to use this occasion to campaign for his decision and beliefs on pro-choice and stem cell research to those gathered at the commencement.
Furthermore, I believe the Catholic parishioners are both smart enough and loyal to their beliefs to understand the issues of controversy over the aforementioned to listen and absorb opposing view points.
The following is a video I produced and released on YouTube during the Primaries last year, where John F. Kennedy is speaking about his Catholic religion and his personal feelings regarding his roll as President. Please give it a listen and see what this former Catholic had to say.
Senator Obama – Faith
Over the past several months, on the Internet, there had been numerous videos and e-Mails circulated, regarding Senator Obama’s religion, which is currently an unpopular religion in some countries and perhaps here in America. This uncalled for “smear” campaign is totally nonproductive to the issues concerning our country at this time, furthermore, an individual’s beliefs should not affect our important selection for the highest office in our country. The video reflects that of another time in our history where religion was also considered an issue in choosing a President, although the audio quality is poor and portions of the audio reluctantly had to be edited, to conform with YouTube’s requirements for uploading, the message given is absolutely “clear” as to its meaning.
Over the past several months, on the Internet, there had been numerous videos and e-Mails circulated, regarding Senator Obama’s religion, which is currently an unpopular religion in some countries and perhaps here in America. This uncalled for “smear” campaign is totally nonproductive to the issues concerning our country at this time, furthermore, an individual’s beliefs should not affect our important selection for the highest office in our country.
The video reflects that of another time in our history where religion was also considered an issue in choosing a President, although the audio quality is poor and portions of the audio reluctantly had to be edited, to conform with YouTube’s requirements for uploading, the message given is absolutely “clear” as to its meaning.
Lets see how long as it been since last September when Americans first learned of our worst economic crisis in almost eighty years?
It’s intuitively obviously to the most casual observer – not long enough for the GOP boys and girls to come up with a fail-safe plan to rescue us from the Democrats Economic Stimulus Package that’s creating a variety of green jobs, improving just about all facets of our digital and concrete infrastructure, resurrect the doomed “middle class”, render lower income tax payers a break in taxes and restore confidence in our country’s future as a world leader.
Now lets consider the benefits of the GOP’s concept of an economic stimulus package (as presented on the first of April (April Fools Day)):
That’s about it, no more, but the ramifications are great! Please carefully read an article publishing on Huffington Post, authored by Bob Cesca and entitled “Insane Republicans Reveal An Insane Budget Plan”
It only makes sense that a party currently being wagged by fringe crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann would release its alternative budget on April Fools’ Day.Not only does the Republican plan freeze discretionary spending for five years in the midst of a recession which, by most accounts and proved by history, will countermand any sort of economic recovery, but it also cuts taxes by 10 percent for the same Wall Street executives whose actions largely got us into this economic mess in the first place. In other words: Congratulations, Republicans, you just released a budget that rewards wealthy corporate executives while blocking any attempt to dig us out of the economic catastrophe they created.Smart!The only bit of Republican legislation that’d be more ridiculous would be if Michele Bachmann were to introduce a constitutional amendment thwarting a fake plot to eliminate the dollar as the form of currency in the United States.Oh wait. She’s already done that. And 30 Republican congressmembers so far have co-sponsored the amendment. 30 Republicans have irrevocably tethered their wagons to the Bachmann crazy train. Excellent. Next on the agenda: a bill creating the Office of Robot Insurance, protecting us from robot attackers who use old people’s medicine for fuel. Speaking of which, the Republican plan also phases out Medicare.The marquee item, however, in the Republican plan is their inexplicably regressive tax cut for the super rich. Wealthy Americans in the top three tax brackets would see their tax burden cut to a flat 25 percent from previous rates of 35, 33 and 28. According to the Center for American Progress, CEOs from any of the top 800 corporations would receive a tax break of around $1.5 million a year. Meanwhile, if you earn $15,000 a year, your tax break will be around $0 a year.But get this. Under the Republican plan, Americans are given the option of paying the old tax rates instead of the new, expensive and regressive Republican rates. So, for example, if your household income is $100,000, you could pay the same tax rate as someone earning $15,000. Or you could be a swell egg and go back to your old rate. Aside from the utter lack of fairness in the notion of a $100,000 household paying the same rate as a $15,000 household, who in their right mind would voluntarily pay higher taxes?Now you might be asking, given that the Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility, how much does this Republican tax cut for the wealthiest three brackets actually cost? Some estimates, according to Steve Benen, project upwards of a $4 trillion price tag. At the very least, according to their own projections, the Republican plan would run up a $500 billion annual budget deficit through at least 2080. Again, the Republican grasp of fiscal responsibility is about as firm as their grasp of reality and sanity. The subtext here being: The trillion dollar Bush tax cuts weren’t irresponsible enough. Let’s go crazy! WOOO!And by the way, those are annual deficits that factor into the mix a completely insane five year freeze on discretionary spending — a freeze that would surely plunge the American economy into a deep depression. To that point, the Republican plan doesn’t account for such an economic catastrophe, and therefore doesn’t factor such an inevitable consequence into their revenue and deficit projects.All told, imagine if you will the Monopoly man running up and shoving you into a deep precipice. The Republican plan not only gives that Monopoly man a $1.5 million check for his trouble, but it also cuts the rope you were using to climb out of the hole — provided you actually survived the fall in the first place.Speaking of holes, did you see the graph Paul Ryan clearly yanked out of his?Check out that steep blue line illustrating the alleged Democratic budget deficits extending to upwards of 50 percent of GDP by 2060. Put another way, suggesting a deficit that’s 50 percent of GDP is like presupposing a living human being that’s 50 percent marshmallow man. It’s insane. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections only extend out to 2019. Yet the Republican chart somehow extends out to 2080. The steep upwards slope of the Democratic budget begins at around 2030 — 11 years after the furthest CBO projections stop.What does this mean? For starters the claim on the chart: “Out-years based on CBO’s Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario” is a lie. And the text: “Source: House Budget Committee Republican Staff” might as well say: “Source: Paul Ryan’s Ass.” In other words, that steep upwards slope is entirely made up.The graph might as well look like this:Yes, the Democratic budgets will be so out of control they’ll eventually make little curly-cues and travel backwards in time — adding to past deficits — while also looping around the word “government” — you know, because the Democrats love government.At this point, the laughable street vendor pamphlet that John Boehner rolled out was probably less ridiculous than this actual budget plan and its accompanying Wall Street Journal graph. But it stands to reason that given their track record the Republicans would churn out a budget proposal that’s fully in line with their backwards, zero cred reputation.
It only makes sense that a party currently being wagged by fringe crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann would release its alternative budget on April Fools’ Day.
Not only does the Republican plan freeze discretionary spending for five years in the midst of a recession which, by most accounts and proved by history, will countermand any sort of economic recovery, but it also cuts taxes by 10 percent for the same Wall Street executives whose actions largely got us into this economic mess in the first place. In other words: Congratulations, Republicans, you just released a budget that rewards wealthy corporate executives while blocking any attempt to dig us out of the economic catastrophe they created.
Smart!
The only bit of Republican legislation that’d be more ridiculous would be if Michele Bachmann were to introduce a constitutional amendment thwarting a fake plot to eliminate the dollar as the form of currency in the United States.
Oh wait. She’s already done that. And 30 Republican congressmembers so far have co-sponsored the amendment. 30 Republicans have irrevocably tethered their wagons to the Bachmann crazy train. Excellent. Next on the agenda: a bill creating the Office of Robot Insurance, protecting us from robot attackers who use old people’s medicine for fuel. Speaking of which, the Republican plan also phases out Medicare.
The marquee item, however, in the Republican plan is their inexplicably regressive tax cut for the super rich. Wealthy Americans in the top three tax brackets would see their tax burden cut to a flat 25 percent from previous rates of 35, 33 and 28. According to the Center for American Progress, CEOs from any of the top 800 corporations would receive a tax break of around $1.5 million a year. Meanwhile, if you earn $15,000 a year, your tax break will be around $0 a year.
But get this. Under the Republican plan, Americans are given the option of paying the old tax rates instead of the new, expensive and regressive Republican rates. So, for example, if your household income is $100,000, you could pay the same tax rate as someone earning $15,000. Or you could be a swell egg and go back to your old rate. Aside from the utter lack of fairness in the notion of a $100,000 household paying the same rate as a $15,000 household, who in their right mind would voluntarily pay higher taxes?
Now you might be asking, given that the Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility, how much does this Republican tax cut for the wealthiest three brackets actually cost? Some estimates, according to Steve Benen, project upwards of a $4 trillion price tag. At the very least, according to their own projections, the Republican plan would run up a $500 billion annual budget deficit through at least 2080. Again, the Republican grasp of fiscal responsibility is about as firm as their grasp of reality and sanity. The subtext here being: The trillion dollar Bush tax cuts weren’t irresponsible enough. Let’s go crazy! WOOO!
And by the way, those are annual deficits that factor into the mix a completely insane five year freeze on discretionary spending — a freeze that would surely plunge the American economy into a deep depression. To that point, the Republican plan doesn’t account for such an economic catastrophe, and therefore doesn’t factor such an inevitable consequence into their revenue and deficit projects.
All told, imagine if you will the Monopoly man running up and shoving you into a deep precipice. The Republican plan not only gives that Monopoly man a $1.5 million check for his trouble, but it also cuts the rope you were using to climb out of the hole — provided you actually survived the fall in the first place.
Speaking of holes, did you see the graph Paul Ryan clearly yanked out of his?
Check out that steep blue line illustrating the alleged Democratic budget deficits extending to upwards of 50 percent of GDP by 2060. Put another way, suggesting a deficit that’s 50 percent of GDP is like presupposing a living human being that’s 50 percent marshmallow man. It’s insane. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections only extend out to 2019. Yet the Republican chart somehow extends out to 2080. The steep upwards slope of the Democratic budget begins at around 2030 — 11 years after the furthest CBO projections stop.
What does this mean? For starters the claim on the chart: “Out-years based on CBO’s Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario” is a lie. And the text: “Source: House Budget Committee Republican Staff” might as well say: “Source: Paul Ryan’s Ass.” In other words, that steep upwards slope is entirely made up.
The graph might as well look like this:
Yes, the Democratic budgets will be so out of control they’ll eventually make little curly-cues and travel backwards in time — adding to past deficits — while also looping around the word “government” — you know, because the Democrats love government.
At this point, the laughable street vendor pamphlet that John Boehner rolled out was probably less ridiculous than this actual budget plan and its accompanying Wall Street Journal graph. But it stands to reason that given their track record the Republicans would churn out a budget proposal that’s fully in line with their backwards, zero cred reputation.
I’ve always said I’m not an economist, but when it’s presented this simply, as Mr. Cesca as accomplished to do; only a fool would understand this is more of a curse than it really is a plan.
I guess I’m not giving up on AIG until someone is behind bars or there’s some dare good answers to questions of “Who took our money and what was it used for?”
Right now I should be authoring postings on the G20 and how our President is fairing with the European leaders who feel we should report to them on all matters American; but I still hung-up on AIG and how any corporation felt it was above the law and dictated its terms and conditions to us the taxpayers.
Today the Wall Street Jounrnal published this online article, informing its readers there was an auditor that was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
For me the issue is “Why didn’t this come to light earlier”, this could have solved many a questions, time and especially money. So, is there some darkness unknown to the Obama administration, because I’m sure had this administration learned of this auditor’s existence sooner, appropriate action would have been rendered, by bring this auditor into the shinning daylight of our gloomy economic burdens we’re facing.
Below is the article from the Wall Street Journal, authored by Ryan Grim and entitled: “Congress Wants AIG Mole’s Documents”.
Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”
Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.
The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.
Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”
The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.
“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”
I guess I could be wrong! I’ve always voted for candidates based on bills they have either authored or supported by their vote, and this, with me, has been true at the local state and federal levels of our government.
Now I see there are other things I should have considered besides the “Intent” of the bill introduced by the person I want in office or that person’s beliefs.
As I understand it, Lawmakers in at least eight U.S. states want recipients of food assistance, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing. For me this is a travesty of government, which could lead to serious repercussions. This effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse. Please consider reviewing this online news release by CBS News entitled: “States Consider Drug Tests For Needy”. Subtitled: “Recipients Of Food Stamps, Unemployment Benefits And Welfare Targeted By Plans In 8 States”.
We enact laws to “aid” and “protect” us for specifically defined reasons, when these laws are not used for this purpose, in my opinion we are violating the “Rule of Law”, which our country is based upon.
Suppose in my extreme example: a person is transporting a registered firearm “illegally” (in actuality basically a law bidding citizen with no criminal record) in there vehicle; and while transporting the firearm this person comes to the aid of rescuing another individual from a pending life or death situation, hence saving the person’s life! Should this “Good Samaritan” be charged with the crime of transporting a firearm illegally?
For me, to long, I have witnessed the miscarriage of justice within our country in regards to applying laws authored to service one purposed and used in another to establish the “Law of Rule” as opposed to the “Rule of Law”. Our former Bush administration is an additional example, with to many examples to site within one posting.
So, lets not deny those who need financial assistance at this troubling time in our economy when they need it the most. Especially when you consider we could be hurting innocent family members within a family more so than the person under question. Denying an individual these needed benefits could also lead this person to a more serious crime and with one in every one-hundred Americans serving prison time; our penal system is already heavily over crowded.
The following video is a prime example of the importance the Rule of Law as it applies to our American society and basically what separates our nation from developing and undeveloped nations.
Public Service, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law
Sen. Ted Kennedy delivers the keynote address at the 2006 Conference on Public Service & the Law at the University of Virginia Law School. Founded by law students seven years ago, the conference brings together students, citizens, and attorneys to discuss current public interest legal issues. A graduate UVA’s law school, Mr. Kennedy discusses ‘Public Service, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law’.
