Sens. Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey announced the Ex-PATRIOT Act this morning. The legislation is intended to counter a tax avoidance scheme where U.S. citizens renounce their citizenship to avoid paying certain taxes. For most of us, this type of tax avoidance is not an option, but for the very wealthy, it can be financially rewarding. Case in point is Facebook gazillionaire, Eduardo Saverin’s decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship and repatriate to Singapore.

The senators call Saverin’s move to renounce his citizenship last year “an outrage” and a “scheme” designed to skip out on the IRS — especially in light of the big payday he’ll get in Friday’s expected Facebook IPO.

Their plan would also bar expats like Saverin from ever re-entering the U.S.

The senators proposed the “Ex-PATRIOT” Act — which stands for “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy” — in response to Saverin’s move, which they say will “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.” - Politico.com

This whole episode spurred something in my memory banks from a comment offered up by one of the GOP hopefuls in a debate.

Now who was that? And what was it in reference to?

Oh yeah…

Ron Paul warned us about this very thing….

Well, it’s official-Mitt Romney is the last GOP candidate standing. Ron Paul, like the others before him-announced he’s suspending his campaign for President. Translation: when a candidate “suspends” their campaign it means they are dropping out of the race altogether. No backsies or do-overs, unless they throw their hat into the ring for the 2016 race. Well, that’s another thing and four years from now.

Now the question is, what happens to the delegates from each candidate has accummulated? Are they going to back Romney out of allegiance to the GOP party? I wonder where is Ralph Nader, the perennial Green Party Presidential candidate is this election. I notice how they are listed on the ballot on the day of the election and I or any other voter has probably heard of them. I don’t recall seeing any of them campaigning in the recent months. Where are any third party candidates? Back in 1980, there was John Anderson who ran for President as an Independent candidate. Didn’t Ross Perot, the millionaire from Texas run in ’92 as an Independent? It’s funny, I actually know of people who voted for him and admitted to it. He was eccentric and quirky as hell, he started off as a Republican and then jumped shipped to run as an Independent. Kind of like Joe Lieberman the senator from Connecticut. He was a Democrat, a Vice-Presidential candidate and then all of a sudden changes party affiliation, becoming an Independent.

Just like every election, there are issues that need to be addressed-health care-(cough, cough-Obamacare) education (No Child Left Behind) jobs/unemployment, gay marriage and defense. No doubt these are hotbed topics to consider for any election but the topic of gay marriage really has been put out on the forefront the last few years. Obama has definitely ruffled feathers with his stance on and support of gay marriage which may hurt his chance with some voters.

As the greatest of the American capitalists of the turn of the 20th century understood, superiority belonged to those who held economic might and economic might came from control of the means of production. In fact, control of the means of production was what won the Civil War for the North, the Second World War for the Allies and the Cold War for the United States. For decades, no one in the world doubted our nation’s ability to out produce anyone else in the world while holding the vastest supply of natural resources and the native market to support that level of production. As long as we were the mightiest economy in the world, we could force the world to bend in any direction we chose—and we did. This is the foundation for the concept of “American Exceptionalism” that so many conservatives and libertarians are promoting and mourning the loss of.

These conservatives and libertarians blame government for the disappearance of “American Exceptionalism,” but in fact they only have to look at their supporters and donors for the true culprits. The loss of “American Exceptionalism” is not new and has little to do with Obama’s so-called “apologizing for U. S. supremacy” and more to do with the now 40 plus-year trickle of America’s control of the means of production to other nations, some of whom are arguably our enemies.

Look back to the “heyday” of the 1950’s. Blue collar jobs in manufacturing and production were plentiful and provided a basis for a solid, prosperous middle class who drove a strong consumer market. Cheap, legal labor performed by minorities and women was available for the production of inexpensive goods. America had an abundant and seemingly unlimited supply of natural resources. Technology developed during World War II was fueling the development of a wide range of innovative products and technology, which were then manufactured by American workers in American plants. The means of production were here, from start to finish, and the excess inventory was shipped around the world. With many goods, the only way to get a quality-built, long-lasting product was to buy American. American workers and American industry became confident and complacent in their assumption of continued superiority.

All that began to change in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The recognition of civil rights for minorities and equality of pay for women drove up the cost of artificially cheap labor. Many small items could be made cheaper using foreign labor and these items became so cheap they were disposable, so quality was no longer an issue. A period of prolonged peace for the majority of the world allowed nations such as Japan and Germany to focus their industrial might on producing things such as steel, automobiles and heavy equipment. China was beginning to rebuild its formerly feudal society into one dominated by central control. After a while, Americans became used to the flood of cheap foreign goods from countries such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan and companies began to move their factories to these nations—the beginning of outsourcing. As production of American goods began to take place outside the country, the American technology used to produce them fell into foreign hands as well. Nations such as Japan did not have to research, develop or create innovative products; they only had to reproduce and tweak them in order to capture the market. Foreign goods became as good, if not better, than American-made goods and were still cheaper.

By the 1990’s the majority of goods sold in the United States were manufactured in other countries, such as Mexico, China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam and Bangladesh. Many of these goods were being produced by “American” companies, but the means of production were anywhere but America. Since the means of production for American goods exist in foreign countries, then the means of production for American goods lay in foreign hands. The governments of those nations or any strong militant interest, are free to take over and control those means of productions anytime they choose and stop production, divert distribution or control inventory as they choose. THESE NATIONS have control of the means of production, not the United States or the “American” companies that “own” them. And as Carnegie or Rockefeller would tell you that means that these nations are the ones with economic might and superiority.

With China being the undisputed leader among these nations, with over one-sixth of the world’s population alone for use as cheap labor, it could be argued that China, and not the United States, has world superiority. Think that’s BS? Just ponder what would happen if China launched a full trade embargo with the United States; no import or export of goods or services with the United States. How much of the merchandise on store shelves would disappear? Who in the United States would be able to produce those goods, period, or at a rate and cost that matches China? Answer—nobody! India has almost as many people as China and is a large supplier of labor for the technical sector in this country. What if they chose to do the same? Where would the computers and other technology this nations now relies on come from and the technical support needed to maintain it? Not from here!

Ladies and gentleman, once we get over this ridiculously false notion that we are superior to everyone else and begin to humble ourselves into working with the rest of the world in response to a situation our nation’s industrial leaders and our own complacency created, the better off and more prosperous we will be. The greatest of our modern economists understood the power of division of labor and that is our shining beacon. Instead of thinking “America First,” maybe we should look more at how we can become a vital, indispensable niche in the world economy other than as a consumer of everybody else’s goods. We need to find what we are best at in the entire world, specialize in it, guard it and certainly not export it to everyone else. If we do not, we will not even be able to sustain our power as a nation of consumers and our children and grandchildren will continue to watch our slide into mediocrity and irrelevancy.

A few moments ago president Barack Obama posted a picture in his Facebook timeline. In the picture there was a statement by Barack Obama saying that he approves same-sex marriage. Strategically gay marriage is clearly one issue Obama wanted to get him differentiated from Mitt Romney in the presidential election campaign. Romney´s stand has been practically the same as Obama had in the previous election 2008. According to religious beliefs Romney says that only man and woman are meant to be married. However he stands for equal civil rights for the homosexual people. This is quite common way of thinking in democratic, civilized countries. The underlying discrimination is covered by the religion.

Obama´s new move in his social media strategy shows how his campaign management is able  to follow the trends. Since the last presidential election 2008 Obama has been dominating the social media campaign. The gay rights and other good causes are something that people are ready to stand for in the social media. By changing his mind Obama was able to make a clear difference between him and Romney. Having served as the president of the United States during the financial crisis Obama has challenges in convincing the voters of his economical capabilities which is an issue that Romney has raised in the campaign.

Thus Obama took a huge step to the liberal side and it is yet hard to estimate wether it will work on his benefit. Changing mind can also be harmful for a politician. This is true especially in Obama´s case because the change is quite huge from other extreme to another. However it is considered only human and shows leadership in some people´s eyes if a person in power is able to change his mind about things. The campaigning strategy is so obvious that it may irritate some voters. But having said that people in the USA understand the name of the game in presidential elections. It is all about media campaigning.

As I said in one of my previous blog postings, November is fastly approaching us. In fact it is right around the corner and will be here before we know it. Scary, isn’t it? Most recently, Rick Santorium and Newt Gingrich suspended their campaigns. We all know that is another way of saying they will fade into political oblivion like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. Rick Perry just went back to being Governor of Texas. Sadly, Ron Paul is hanging on by a thread. Oh yes, he does have his staunch supporters but how much time will he keep hanging in there before he throws in the towel.

It seems like the obvious ticket for the 2012 Presidential Election will be Mitt Romney and our current Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama. As far as who Romney is going to choose to be his Vice-Presidential running mate, there’s this hispanic politician from Florida. What’s his name…ahhh, it’s Marco Rubio. There is another one that’s come up in discussions in the media, Tim Pawlenty.

Former Presidential candidate and Arizona senator, John McCain offered up Romney the advice to choose a running mate that he can trust. Perhaps McCain is speaking from experience there. Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn’t it? We can only assume what’s going to happen in November. The election is six months away and it will be here before we know it. We can be apathetic, choosing not to vote by saying there’s not a candidate worthy of our vote. Or we can vote for who we feel is the best candidate for the job even if that means voting for a third-party candidate.

Elizabeth Warren had this to say about her opponent for the Massachusetts Senate seat:

My Republican opponent, Scott Brown, campaigned, campaigned against health care reform. And when he got to the Senate, he voted to block health care reform. We just learned today, back in Massachusetts, that he is using that same health care reform act to make sure that his adult daughter gets covered on his health insurance policy – at the same moment that he wants to repeal it for everyone else. This is wrong. This is wrong.

Let’s follow this argument to its logical conclusion, shall we?

I presume that Elizabeth Warren opposes the continued extension of the Bush tax cuts. By her logic, it is morally reprehensible for her to continue to benefit from them, so she should be paying a higher tax rate right now, and for every year she campaigned for their expiration. And because she benefits from those cuts, she should not be campaigning to end them.

Pretend that I opposed the 16th amendment to the Constitution, you know, the one that created the Income Tax, and was actively campaigning for its repeal. By Elizabeth Warren’s logic I should not pay taxes because I am campaigning against it.

Suppose I oppose the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, like Ron Paul does. By Elizabeth Warren’s logic Ron Paul and I should not use dollars issued by the Federal Reserve Bank (i.e., the only legal U.S. currency).

President Barack Obama, as Senator from Illinois, opposed an increase in the debt ceiling, calling it a failure in leadership. By Elizabeth Warren’s logic, he should not have voted for ANY spending made possible by the increase in debt. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest he DID vote for more spending.

As a nation, if we buy Elizabeth Warren’s argument, then we have lost all reason. And without reason, we are lost.

The United States of America was founded on revolution, political evolution and compromise; a nation unlike any other on Earth. At the time of our nation’s founding, governments were primarily either monarchies or states governed by warlords who took their territories through conquest. The rights and welfare of citizens were not a primary concern, if a concern at all; the consolidation and protection of power was. Not only did citizens of a state have no say in who lead them, they had no say in the actions taken by those who lead them. At the same time, these leaders collected taxes to support themselves and their desires– truly “taxation without representation.” A few countries like England allowed a form of republic, but only the landed class, wealthy merchants and aristocracy were represented, not the common man.

Our Founding Fathers stood at the forefront of political thought in their day. The great philosophers John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Jean Jacques Rousseau had only recently excited the intellectual and political elite with their concepts of a society founded on liberty and the equality of all man. Previous to this revolutionary concept, rights were arbitrary and largely determined by parentage and connections. The notion of every person possessing equal inherent and inalienable rights was a new and radical idea. American colonists fully embraced this concept, since it was ideal for their newly discovered land devoid of an established society or aristocracy. The American Revolutionary War was not just a revolution against foreign intrusion; it represented a revolution in political ideals that was a natural evolution of Enlightenment thought.

John Locke, who Jefferson himself named as his inspiration for the Declaration of Independence, proposed in his Social Contract theory that in order to achieve the security and protection of rights promoted by inclusion in a society, members of that society must abridge or give up certain rights, such as the rights to judge and punish. Locke and his contemporaries understood that you cannot equally guarantee the rights of men all of the time, since the truly free exercise of one person’s rights will nearly always come into conflict with the absolute rights of another. They believed free exercise of rights should naturally be limited by what best promotes the rights of society as a whole. The rights of states, as individual members of a single nation, would also be subject to limits in order to promote the benefit of the nation as a whole. The strong democratic federal government envisioned by the Federalists was one that did not exist before because it recognized the inalienable rights of all as its mandate for power and in acting to promote maximum rights for all, it was justified in determining and prescribing proper limits for the rights and duties of its citizens. Democratic society and its government required a level of cooperation and compromise in order to survive and thrive.

The process of creating the Constitution and ratifying it was an example of this type of compromise; one that would be unheard of in today’s politically contentious climate. The Continental Congress of 1787 was composed of two very powerful, yet diametrically opposed, camps fighting for what they both thought was right—Federalists, who believed in a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who were in favor of a reformed confederacy of states with a minimal loose central government. The strong central government achieved in the Constitution allowed the new United States of America to create a unified foreign policy, regulate trade between states, pay its debts and debtors, and establish a uniform currency and economic policy that steered the nation away from financial ruin without creating an oligarchy. This strong central government also ensured the legal recognition of the inherent rights of all men (even if MEN in the original Constitution only meant white male landowners) found in the Constitution. Without the central government that many objected to as too strong and omnipresent, the United States would have remained a bunch of squabbling nation/states ripe for the picking by powerful foreign nations and in constant danger of civil war.

Today’s even stronger federal government, with its vast level of responsibility for the welfare of the American people, is NOT a bastardization of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers or their original intent. In actuality, it is in line with the original philosophical tenets that formed the context in which our nation was founded because it fulfills its duty of protecting the rights of society as a whole while safeguarding the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution places no scope or scale on the federal government, nor does it place a maximum limit on the level of protection it provides for its citizens. It DOES define the shape of the federal government and provides limits on how much it can infringe on the particular rights of American citizens delineated in the Bill of Rights. As long as the federal government maintains the same shape and does not infringe on the rights protected and identified in the Constitution, it is constitutionally valid regardless of size.

When libertarians and conservatives argue for a weaker federal government that they feel better represents the Founding Father’s original intent, I feel that they display a lack of understanding of that intent and the philosophical context that informed it. Without proper context, any interpretation of what the Fathers intended is meaningless. If you do not consider what the fundamental purpose and responsibilities of a society and its government are, how can you judge if it is doing a good job? Simple…you can’t. There are many who, for their own selfish motivations, want to remove any control exerted by the federal government by shrinking it and removing its power. They ignore context so the government can be presented in the negative light in which they wish it to be seen and hasten its demise. Is the federal government an infallible, perfectly run organization? No. Is there room for improvement? Sure. It is, after all, a human institution and therefore imperfect. But reforming it and shrinking it until it can be effectively meaningless are two different things. Government is necessary to protect society’s rights and to balance the influence of the rich and powerful who would place their rights over the rights of all. Without it, America would be a free for all where only the richest have the ability to exercise their rights and survive…definitely NOT what the Founding Fathers intended.

I recently saw this article and read the first paragraph and was floored. I can’t believe this nation has nothing to do except worry about who is going to control Congress!

Shouldn’t we be trying to FIX the nations problems instead of worrying who’s going to get that high paid salary?

Oh wait, well the answer to that is: let’s not worry about the people starving and homeless, but we should worry about feeding our fat congressional wallets. Hmmm…

Our founding fathers would be so proud.

With the 2012 election around the corner, whom are you voting for? Power, popularity, and money or someone that actually cares?

Personally, if I had to vote at this stage of the Competition it would be for Ron Paul.  Although I don’t agree with him on all the issues, I think he is better suited for the job.

Anyway, we hear all these empty promises (I won’t mention any) and then we see little to no results.  Politicians get caught up in the hype of the election and it’s just about winning to be the best. They make out like they care about the people, but do they really?

When a politician makes his/her decisions based on what THEY feel is right or what THEIR religion says or what gets THEM re-elected we the people end up being discriminated against, humiliated, and we end up getting mad at the government, resulting in protests and petitions.

For example, it has been proven that marriage existed long before the first government. Therefore, I don’t think the government should have any say in marriage. That’s not the case because most brainwashed politicians vote based on what their religion says the definition of marriage should be, or what they personally think marriage should be, or what gets them more constituents or helps them get re-elected, or what their big money supporters believe so that they have campaign funds. It’s NEVER about what is fair, equal, and best for Americans.

I’m not going to dabble any more in marriage on this post, but that was just one of several issues where politicians don’t and never have and probably never will care.

These are strictly my opinions. I will expand on these in future posts, so stay tuned!

In the next few months, each of the major political parties will stage its own dog and pony show, the context of which will be a discredit to dogs and ponies everywhere.  What I mean is that the idea of a dog and pony show is to attract attention to an event, to drum up excitement, and sometimes to obscure the lack of substance of the event itself by trotting out dogs and ponies to serve as distractions of a sort.

We will hear about abortion, same-sex marriages, the war in Afghanistan, the nuclear threat in Iran, healthcare, and immigration.  All of these topics have some relative importance and are worth discussing as part of a political forum.  However, none of these issues should be a deal closer or a deal breaker when it comes to deciding how to vote.

I think Obamacare should be repealed, and legislators should start over to see how government might be able to help improve the healthcare programs that are available in the country.  My vote can’t hinge on this, though, as the critical issues need to be larger and more sweeping.  The US has ceased to be a world leader in many areas, after a half century or more in the vanguard of almost everything.  What happened?  Why is our economy clunking along, despite intervention attempts, and how can we revitalize the innovation and flexibility that was once the cornerstone of American success.

I want the immigration situation cleaned up.  Come up with a plan to differentiate between the illegals who are here but who are bent on staying and contributing, and the illegals who are here to disrupt and undermine and abuse the system. But my vote must go to the person who stands the best chance to remediate our current inability to govern.  Which candidate can prod the US Congress to craft and support a course that focuses on creative problem solving, not positioning for the next election.

I want some of the irresolvable stalemates to take a back seat.  I have no reservations about perks for married couples, since two parent families are a stabilizing force for society as a whole, but I don’t think those who choose not to marry, or who choose to commit to a same sex partner need to be penalized by the absence of opportunities.  This issue won’t determine my vote though.  Neither will contraception, or abortion, or gas prices.

America has lost its competitive edge.  The focus of the conventions should be on ways to get it back.