THE NEWSLETTER

Today's Note From a Madman

Thursday, February 3, 2005

 

It's IDEA DAY!

 

From time to time, I have a great idea. My only wish is that it doesn't die of loneliness.

 

But Seriously...

 

Too many "public servants" run for office to make their own lives better. I remember hearing a dialogue in a movie that sounded something like this:

MAN 1: "Why would he want to run for office? He has so much money to begin with."

MAN 2: "Politics, that's where the REAL money is."

 

Does anybody know what happens to the political contributions that is left over from a political campaign?

If the politician retires, they get to KEEP IT.

 

That seems fair, doesn't it?

 

In this day and age of politicians being under the "purple-finger" of mega-corporations owned or run by the Corporate Communists friends of "G"lobal "W"arming Bush, it seems that we, as THE CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, should object to this practice of keeping political contributions as "your representative's savings plan."

 

You might ask me, "Well then, what would you do to fix this?"

 

I'm glad you asked:

 

1- Any money raised by a politician's campaign ought to go back into their party's coffers for use by their party in future campaigns. If that politician, "unretires", the money, without interest should be repaid by the party to them, in increments so as not to bankrupt the party. For example, let's say Zell Miller retires (a great idea that has come to pass). His "leftover campaign contributions" goes to the Democratic Party's future election fund. If Zell decides to "unretire", the repayment of the campaign contributions from the DNC would be repaid back over time. The same would hold true for Senator Jim Jefferds (I-VT) if he were to retire, then unretire. Both of these examples use candidates that might unretire and run as a member of a different party.

 

2- No politician who "retires" can work for any company that does business with the government for a period of time that would have been their next term. In other words, congressional representatives can't work for a lobby firm for two years. A senator can't work for a lobby firm for 6 years. However, if they are defeated in the GENERAL ELECTION (not the primary), they CAN take that job. That way there won't be any "shenanigans." An exception should be made for any retired office-holder who goes back to work for his previous employer.

 

3- Being elected to a high public office such as: congress; senate; or any executive position (President, Vice President, Governor, Mayor of a large city, etc) should be a sacrifice, and not for the constituents. It is ridiculous for anyone who holds a high public office to possess stock in a company that does business with the government, whether it be in a blind trust or not. Does anybody out there really think that Dick "Go F*ck Yourself" Cheney doesn't check out the stock pages in the Times or the Post (substitute New York or Washington in front of either of those 2 newspapers) to see what Halliburton (home of the missing $8.8 billion dollars) is up to? Running for a public office means you are asking for the public "trust", and that "trust" shouldn't be taken lightly. All stocks in companies that deal with the government should be SOLD within the first 6 months of the office-holder's term, and it should be in a "public sale", not a "gift" to a loved one.

 

I mentioned the above idea to a highly intelligent, politically aware friend of mine. He said, "it would never go through" and I am being "naive". He added that, "Politicians would never cook their golden goose."

 

I'm in the mood for a good goose dinner tonight.

 

Bush might still be President today if the above ideas were law, but I wonder who would be the Vice President?

 

-Noah Greenberg


 

I WANT MY $14,257

 

Every year for the past 60 years, SOCIAL SECURITY has been in a SURPLUS. At the end of 2002, the SOCIAL SECURITY LOCK BOX had a SURPLUS of $1.378 TRILLION DOLLARS after everyone was paid. At the end of 2003, that SURPLUS was $1.530 TRILLION DOLLARS (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html).

 

WOW

 

To put that number in perspective, If that money were divided up among every family in America,

YOUR FAMILY'S SHARE be $14,257 (107,366,878 families as of the 2000 US Census).

 

FOURTEEN-THOUSAND, TWO-HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SEVEN DOLLARS.

 

That would pay off a lot of debt in a lot of American households.

That would buy a nice, new compact car, or used luxury model.

That would pay for family trips for the next four to fourteen years.

That would pay tuition at most state colleges for three to four years for one child.

That would be nice IF THE MONEY REALLY EXISTED!

 

You see, boys and girls, "G"lobal "W"arming Bush doesn't have your family's $14,257. He gave it to the richest one-percent of Americans in the form of an UNFAIR TAX BREAK and you're never going to see it again.

 

That was the money in the LOCK-BOX. The money that wasn't supposed to be touched. The money that both Al Gore and "G"lobal "W"arming Bush promised NOT TO TOUCH. The money that, if it were touched, was to be paid back to the Social Security Trust Fund, or LOCK BOX with interest.

 

Instead, GW is going to make his RICH FRIENDS' TAX CUTS permanent.

 

And where is that money coming from?

 

Don't look now, but I think I see the President and he found the "KEY".

 

-Noah Greenberg


DEFICIT? WHAT DEFICIT?

 

How will "G"lobal "W"arming Bush cut the deficit in half by 2009? (note: one year AFTER he leaves office).

 

President Bush said: “Next week I will send you a budget that… stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.”

 

FACT: In his calculations, the president is using a deficit number which excludes funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration’s $2.5 trillion proposal to extend tax cuts, and the administration’s $2 trillion Social Security package.

 

-George Mass


 On Social Security:

 

President "G"lobal "W"arming Bush had no plan but did have principles.

 

Then, he had a 109 page plan (and no principles?).

 

The plan was a solution to "the crisis". Now, he has a "better deal" but no solution to "the crisis".

 

What does GW really have?

 

Snake-Oil!

 

-Robert Scardapane


STUPID QUOTE OF THE DAY


Because of the State of the Union Address, i feel there were enough stupid quotes to go around for  today as well as yesterday. So, NO STUPID QUOTE TODAY!

 

I'm all tuckered out.

 

-Noah Greenberg


Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or comments@nationalview.org

-Noah Greenberg