The SoapBoxers

Cheaters Never Win

Attorney General Eric Holder

Fast and Furious is going to be Obama’s Watergate AND Lewinsky scandals. He’s already got the executive privilege covered (and I’ll get to that in a minute)– but here’s the difference. No one died in Watergate and Lewinsky. Unless you count sperm as people. And that’s just ew.

The reason the executive privilege was such a surprise yesterday is because a President cannot invoke executive privilege unless he’s personally involved. But just a few weeks ago he was claiming he was not. I would think he was surrounded by enough smart people to know the rules, if, he was in fact NOT involved, it would not apply. Invoking executive privilege only raised more questions than it answered.

So what’s the deal? Is he or isn’t he? Then again, this just goes to show how UNtransparent he really is. Believe it or not, he DID say, “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.”

So much for openness and transparency.

And then there’s the issue of the most recent executive order of stopping deportation and issuing work visas to over 800,000 illegal immigrants. Again, herein lies the problem. WHAT jobs, Mr. President? People who are legal citizens can’t find work and we’re going to flood the pool with 800,000 MORE people eligible for work? Will they now be eligible for unemployment too?

While they did come here as children, and it was the sins of their parents that caused them to be illegal, they still are NOT legal. And don’t call them “undocumented”. Changing the name doesn’t make them any less illegal. It’d be like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. It still doesn’t make it right.

I’ve posed this question to a few of my friends who came here legally (from Mexico) and they consider it a slap in the face to all of the hard work they did (and money they paid) to become legal citizens to work. One friend said, “I know life isn’t fair but this isn’t fair. I’m trying to teach my son to do the right thing and this shows him bad behavior can be rewarded.”

Yes, we’re a nation of immigrants (unless you’re full blood Native American). But our ancestors came here legally. My Paternal Grandfather came here from Canada and my Maternal Great Grandfather immigrated from Ireland. Legally.

There’s a lot to be un-done come January 2013. It seems Obama’s house of cards is just tumbling down. As I’m teaching my kids, lying and cheating doesn’t pay. I’m hoping the election in November will be the best lesson for them. Cheaters never win.

Editor’s note: Peter Shaw is joining The Soap Boxers and will be writing a conservative political column the first Thursday of every month.  He replaces Squeaky, who will still write occasional articles, but on a less regular basis.  Welcome aboard, Peter.

Every election year I hear this phrase; “This is the most important election in our lifetime.” Sometimes you hear it’s the most important election since the Civil War. The recall vote in Wisconsin for Governor Scott Walker has prompted some people to say it’s the most important election ever. I am a political aficionado but the one thing I hate about politics are the emotional arguments. I don’t like being played by any candidate or cause.

I honestly believe the election of President George HW Bush, our 43rd president, was more important than this election in 2012. I believe the election of President Ronald Reagan was more important than this election. I believe the election of President Abraham Lincoln was more important than this election. In 2004 President Bush and other Republicans gloated that more people voted Republican than ever before. This claim is pointless since everyone knows there were more registered voters in 2004 than ever before. The real landslide was the 1972 election where Nixon won 49 states.

When President Obama tried to apply the Gospel of the Cross and the Golden Rule to same sex marriages he isn’t making a logical or theological argument. President Obama is playing on people’s reverence, love, and obedience to God. In the process President Obama is pitting Holy Scripture against Holy Scripture. I find this contemptible.

Recently the Department of Justice employed selective enforcement by not enforcing federal law titled “Defense of Marriage Act”. President Obama said this was done because the law doesn’t provide equal protection under the law. This interpretation of law is logical however it isn’t up to law enforcement to interpret but the courts. I find this unconstitutional yet preferable to President Obama’s emotional plea.

What needs to be done by every voter is examining their values and why they hold such values. Every voter should gain a deeper understanding of the issues and the institutions of our government and society. For example, we need to know why the state is involved in an ecclesiastical institution. We need to know what is life and when does begin? We need to know what made America great and why she is floundering. We need to know the real reason why the 2012 election is important.

I believe I have a distinct perspective on the issues because I always ask why. I naturally distrust second person sources. I make very attempt to approach every issue with a stoic, logical, and objective perspective. I will cover these issues and more in the coming weeks. I can’t tell you what your values are and why you hold them. I can share my understanding of politics, government, and society. Despite what Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats say, rhetoric doesn’t divide a nation. A diverse culture divides a nation. I hope my stoic contribution to our web magazine somehow narrows the divide between liberals and conservatives.

My name is Peter Shaw and I write for TSB web magazine.

One of my favorite political sites is Electoral-Vote.com.  The site is run by Andrew Tanenbaum.  Tanenbaum is perhaps best know for creating the MINIX operating system in the late 1980s.

In recent years, Tanenbaum has been hard at work projecting the winners of races for federal office.  Much of the focus, naturally, has been on the presidential elections.  The site does a lot of number crunching with survey numbers, and I generally enjoy the analysis and anecdotes.

A full five months before the election, Tanenbaum has a map of expected winners in each state.  He had Obama with 242 electoral votes locked up and Romney has 165.  The other 131 electoral votes, from twelve “purple” states, are expected to be in play.

You can quibble with the numbers a bit.  Tanenbaum admits to leaning left, so there may be some sort of liberal bias in his numbers.  However, at the high level, there’s no denying the truth.  There are 12-15 states that will be “in play” during the 2012 presidential elections.  The other 35-38 state lean so far one direction or the other that the state is a lost cause for one of the candidates.  Mitt Romney will not will Connecticut, nor will Barack Obama win Alaska.

The net effect is that the candidates will avoid those states entirely, or make only token visits.  Time that Mitt Romney spends in Connecticut is time that he could instead spend in Florida – a state that is in play and has 29 electoral votes up for grabs.

A lack of presidential visits likely won’t bring many Connecticut residents to tears.  However, beyond the lack of visits, there is likely to also be a lack of focus that are important to voters in Connecticut.  And it’s not just the conservative voters in Connecticut who won’t have a voice.  The liberal voters who will almost certainly propel Barack Obama to a victory in the state will also be ignored.

Quite honestly, the voters and issues in states such as Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and my own state of Iowa will become much more important than the burning issues in California, New York, Texas – and, yes, Connecticut.  Even if a candidate feels strongly about an issue that it important in those states, there’s virtually no upside in championing the issues.  And there’s definitely downside.  You definitely don’t want to lose voters in Florida because you stuck your neck out for voters in Connecticut.

Those who champion the electoral college like to say that the process ensure that the large states aren’t given undue weight.  The thought is that if popular vote were used, a candidate could rack up huge vote totals in California, New York, Florida, and Ohio and make the voters in Iowa and Rhode Island irrelevant.

However, I’d argue that the electoral college process also picks winners and losers – it’s just a different set of winners and losers than the popular vote.  I’d also argue that the popular vote treats each equivalent bloc of voters the same.  A bloc of ten thousand voters in California would have the exact same influence as a bloc of ten thousand voters in Montana.  Sure, a politician can get more votes in California than Montana, but this is simply because there are more citizens in California.  Why shouldn’t a larger blocc of citizens have more influence?

The current process doesn’t pick winners and losers based on size, but based on degree of purple.  The more purple a state, the more important they become; the blue and red states become less relevant.   

Nanny state, nanny state, nanny state!!!! OK that should get my thought process out so you know what I’m thinking. It should also irritate a few people that don’t like the phrase nanny state. What does the phrase mean though?

A nanny state exists when a government enacts laws that are over protective. They interfere with our rights to enjoy life and our rights to choose things that please us. I don’t know why, but there seems to be an incredible insurgence of nanny state laws over the last few years.

First we have the west coast banning happy meal toys. Then we have the big push forcing McDonalds to include apples with all happy meals. Now we have the left coast trying to ban “sugary drinks” (ie soda) larger than 16 ounces. Seriously? What are people thinking? Are they saying that I’m not adult enough to decide if I want a Big Gulp from 7-11? I already know legislators are saying that my kids want happy meals only because of the toys and that I’m not parent enough to tell my kids no.

Mayor Bloomberg defends this action by saying that they’re combating obesity. The city has spent several million dollars combating obesity and this is their way of reducing consumption. The lower income group is allegedly targeted because they have a higher incident of obesity. By limiting the size of the soda containers, they effectively raise the price of soda. The result they hope for is that the lower income citizens will then not be able to buy as much “sugary drink” and thus lower their caloric intake. This is just another example of why we don’t want government involved in our health/healthcare decisions.

So what is the next logical move after large containers of soda is banned? I think the next logical step is for them to go after the restaurants serving hamburgers in NYC. Seriously, check these beautiful works of art out! I don’t know how Bloomberg can even for a moment consider banning soda but wouldn’t address these huge burgers covered in bacon, eggs and sauces; I’m talking fat city!

For those that know me personally, you know I’m a big micro-brewed beer fan. One of my biggest fears is that the government will now decide that I don’t need beer. I really love beer! I also really love cigars! The federal government has already been trying to ban the sale of mail order cigars. This would also eliminate walk in humidors, cigar marketing, cigar events/promotions, flavored cigars and other things that we likely need to “pass the bill” to find out what is in it.

So after all this, my fundamental question is this: Why do some people feel like we need to legislate everything to death? We have laws on the books that are totally unnecessary. If one law covers it, why create another new one to cover the same problem again? Why can’t people be left alone to live? Why does Mrs. Obama feel the need to dictate what I can buy at a fast food restaurant? Why does Mr. Bloomberg feel the need to regulate the size of soda that I can buy? Why do the counties in Colorado feel the need to insert a “use tax” on my vehicle registration?

I’m not sure why we’ve had this change toward regulating everything. I really hope that this is a temporary thought process and we can stop soon though. I still believe that we are a mature and responsible nation that can wipe our own noses and take care of ourselves. I hope that at some point the majority of our nation returns that same way of thinking.

Squeaky…

Cory Booker at an Obama rally

I am in a state of disbelief.  On Monday the Republican National Comittee publically announced its support for the reelection of President Obama. Now the RNC might not have known what they were doing, it woudn’t be the first time afterall. In effect though, that is what they did with the launching of their”I Stand with Cory” campaign. This was after Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Cory Booker was on Meet the Press and while talking about how he is sick of both sides and negative campaigning and manipulating truths and amongst other things included talking about private equity and Bain Capital. Booker got some fack for his comments from the left, but the RNC rushed to his aid saying that they stood with him.

Now Booker talked about much more than just Bain, but the Republicans must have stuck their heads up their asses and only took it out to hear about the Bain comments and then ran with putting that ad nauseuam into their talking points since. I know it is just weird for them to see someone speaking with an independent mind and not being a mindless Republican drone. Now I can understand where Booker is coming from on being sick of negative camaigning, but on the issue of Bain I think he is dead wrong. I can’t blame him though for throwing a few kind words their way, afterall they did hep him with campaign donations before. He must have been just returning the favor.

Since the RNC’s campaign started Booker has come back on TV and attacked them for the same things he was metioning on Meet the Press and taking the soundbite that peased them and running ads with it for negative campaigning. He also said that he fully supports Obama for his reelection. Now after this did the Repubican Party stop their “I Stand with Cory” campaign? Nope, they doubled down on it. So thank you to the Republican National Committe for ending this election cyce early by coming out in full support of President Obama for his second term. I wonder what Mitt will think?

After the release of the TIME magazine cover “Are You Mom Enough”, the internet was a buzz with pro and anti breastfeeding comments. I wouldn’t be called “Crunchy Conservative” if I didn’t weigh in on this, would I?

First of all, I’ve nursed all three of my boys (and will nurse baby due in August) until they decided it was time to stop. My younger two quit nursing (self-weaned) due to pregnancy. I’ve heard the milk tastes funny due to the change of hormones, however, never tested this theory. My second son quit nursing at about 9 months, when I was three months pregnant with baby #3. My third son quit nursing at 18 months because I was 8 weeks pregnant with baby #4.

My first child, however, nursed much longer. He was 2.5 when he quit nursing. And there’s nothing wrong with that. My husband was deployed and my Doctor (and his pediatrician) encouraged me to to continue nursing as more of a comfort/security issue. I wasn’t going to deny him of it. His dad, after all, was in a war zone. Our son needed security and stability. And if that meant nursing, I was fine with that.

I never used a chair ( like the TIME cover) to nurse him and it was mostly just nursing before bed and naptime after the age of 2. People would say, “If he can say it, shouldn’t you stop?” No. Honestly, one of my favorite memories of his toddlerhood is when he was tired he’d say, “Mommy, I go ni-ni nurse?” It was great. When Daddy came back, he was more focused on his traditional routine of Daddy reading to him at bedtime and he became uninterested in nursing. He’s only had one ear infection in his life and is one of the healthiest kids I’ve ever met. While I’m sure some of it is due to good genetics and diet, I believe a lot of it is due to nursing.

In case you’re keeping track, with the exception of two months after the oldest stopped nursing and I conceived baby #2, I’ve been either pregnant or nursing since February 2005. The old “But I want my body back” argument doesn’t fly with me. You’re a mother. Nothing is really yours now. Deal with it. The earlier you accept that, the better.

When nursing my oldest at a restaurant (and I own nursing tops and do it discreetly), I had a woman ask me to take him to the bathroom to nurse. Unacceptable. I looked at her, smiled and said, “He’ll eat his meal in the bathroom as soon as you do.” She left. I also refuse to put a heavy blanket over my child’s head while nursing. Do you eat under a blanket? Neither should he.

Which brings me to the most asinine argument ever, “pooping is natural but you don’t see me dropping my pants in the middle of a restaurant to do it.” You’re mixing two different bodily functions. This argument just does not apply to breastfeeding. Stop using it.

When my oldest was a month old, we traveled to my hometown for Christmas Eve services. My mom gave me a funny look when I went to nurse my son during Mass. I replied, “Baby Jesus was breastfed.” She smiled and nodded. After seeing three children being breastfed (and how healthy they are compared to other children the same age), she’s become a breastfeeding advocate as well.

Maybe if more people would do what is natural and best for mom and baby, more people would see how “normal” and healthy it really is.

Stop judging people for doing what is best for their children. Breastfeeding is normal and natural. It’s a shame the way our society has sexualized breasts. We’re just using them what they’re designed for.

The passing of Amendment One in North Carolina yesterday got me thinking about a long-standing law in the United States that gives tax-exempt status to recognized religious institutions. The basic idea is that the US was founded on religious freedom and the surest way to prevent the free exercise of religion is to tax it . Exempting a church from taxes is also one of the best ways to keep the “separation of church and State” as described by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. This nation was founded on the basis that people should be able to practice whatever religion they’d like, and the government should have no ability to prosecute or privileged individuals for religious reasons – it’s supposedly why the Pilgrims came across on the Mayflower.

Over the past few months many churches in North Carolina have taken a rather active stance in favor of Amendment One, from simply putting up signs in favor of the amendment to having their pastors actively speak to the media that they are supporting the amendment. Beyond that I’ve heard quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that some churches are even telling their congregation that they should vote for Amendment One. One of the biggest Holy Rollers of all time, Billy Graham, came out enthusiastically for Amendment One. By taking an active stance for such a politically divisive issue, these churches are without a doubt getting political – if that’s the case, shouldn’t the rewards for staying politically neutral, tax exemption, be taken away?

A tax exemption is not a right, there is no constitutional mention at all of a religious institution’s right to not pay taxes. In fact, there are forms and qualifications to submit to the IRS that any tax exempt organization has to complete to show that they get the privilege of paying less or no taxes. The whole purpose of the tax exemption in the first place was because churches were believed to “fill in the gaps” in terms of charity and helping the poor and destitute, the gaps that the government was unwilling or unable to take care of. If a church is taking a political stance, then they are intrinsically swaying voters and changing outcomes and results regardless of the original intentions.

The right to not pay taxes is fine for charities, but when a church decides to speak out against individual rights the IRS has the right to veto that church’s application for tax-exempt status.

President Obama has his reelection strategy underway.  His campaign slogan “Forward” has been unveiled.  Obama is currently leading Romney in the polls and the money is pouring in to his campaign fund.  The question that a lot of people are wondering though is who will be the running mates to Obama and Romney?

Will Obama Keep Biden?

Is Hillary Clinton in line for a promotion?

Obama has experience with Biden and we all know exactly what Biden’s slip ups provide us; humor.  Really, of all the individuals that Obama could have chosen for his 2008 campaign, he has the horse’s ass of the Democratic Party.  Biden has more slip ups that someone with a severe case of Tourette’s Syndrome.  It makes me wonder if whoever did the vetting of Biden was awake or asleep.

Obama could choose Hillary Clinton who is a hard worker, has well established relations (no, not those type of relations) on Capitol Hill and is arguably much more of a “moderate” than Obama or Biden.  Clinton could help secure the female vote that has been alienated by Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney never working a day in her life.

Romney’s Options

Christie

Romney has a few more suitors to consider for his running mate.  Chris Christie would win the hearts and minds of many with his true conservatism. He’s the current New Jersey governor and has not ruled out a run with Romney.

Romney and Santorum butted heads a lot in the primaries and there is little doubt that Romney is left with bruises and Santorum is likely still frustrated.  Santorum would bring the vote of evangelical Christian hard-core, traditional conservatives. The question is. “Can each of them get past the heated tiffs from the last 6 months?”

Rubio

Marco Rubio, the Senator from Florida is a high energy up and coming politician.  He is loved in his home state and would certainly help bring on board some of the Hispanic vote.  The tea party loves him and I believe he’d help bring back some of the hard core conservatives that don’t like a lot of Romney’s past.  His lack of experience though is a big deficit. (He’s more experienced that Obama was in 2008, but that isn’t saying much)

Condoleezza Rice is not a new name in politics and is has a great deal of experience with the White House.  Condoleezza was the Secretary of State under President George W Bush and probably has some negative feelings associated with her because some do not view the GW Bush years as favorable.  Condi though is a mainstream conservative with her head on straight.  She’d strengthen the female vote and certainly give some feelings of comfort to those of us that aren’t sure Romney is very conservative.  On top of all that, Condi is hot.

The Endgame Nears

Both candidates have plenty of short comings that they need their VP’s to help overcome.

Obama now has a 3 year record to run on and not much to show.  The recent politicizing of the Usama Bin Laden killing was the only major victory of his term and now that has led to harsh criticism.  Obama is a wealthy man, a lawyer and a member of the 1% that the OWS crowd protests.  He needs this same group to get him elected.

Romney has weaknesses as well.  He governed as more of a liberal than a conservative as the Massachusetts Governor.  His religion (Mormonism) has also upset many traditional conservatives.  He’s independently wealthy making him also a target of the 99% OWS group.  If wealth is evil, Romney is more evil than Obama when you compare his $240 Million to Obama’s $10 Million.  I’m sure Romney’s camp will use this as an advantage in dealing with America’s failed economy and recovery.

One thing is for certain. Obama stepped in it with the SEALs when he politicized their killing of Bin Laden.  I’m also wondering how the Right will use the dishonorable discharge of Marine Sergeant Gary Stein over his Facebook posting concerning Obama. In Sergeant Stein’s situation, there needs to be one more exception placed on the First Amendment for off duty military personnel on social media sites.  Obviously this is not considered protected speech and most certainly has been proven to have serious consequences.

We have some exciting campaigning and debates headed our way over the next few months.  Of course, we also have a lot of annoying phone calls and TV ads.  Hopefully after all that grief we have a conservative president with an intelligent and ready to lead vice president.

Squeaky…

Only one GOP candidate will reach the finish line.

Well folks if it was already pretty much clear after Rick Santorum decided his cause was not worth it after all and called it quits, the results from Tuesday’s primaries made it resoundingly clear that the General Election has arrived. Yippie! Well not really, for me at least. I am now kind of burnt out and disappointed in the whole thing. Without anyone that matter campaigning against him Romney swept the primaries on Tuesday and made it clear that he will get to that magical number of delegates at some point to claim the nomination officially – something that would have been more difficult had Santorum stayed in the race. Sure he still would have had the most delegates and Santorum was never going to get to that point before the convention either, but that is what made it so entertaining. The convention was going to be actually worth paying attention to, now it will just be the standard rubber stamped coronation of the nominee.

So now its time to move on to the next thing to talk about. Who will Romney choose to be his running mate? It is really to early to tell and tons of names get thrown around on a daily basis, but one thing is abundantly clear is that it will be someone well to the right of Romney. Whoever it is I just want it to get announced soon so we have all the players in the General Election revealed and I can start caring about following things again.

And now for the Bad Nuts of the Month, in no particular order…

Rep. Allen West

Does Allen West want a McCarthy-era witch hunt?

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Florida Congressman Allen West seems to think many members of the Democratic party in Congress are. Earlier this month at a town hall meeting, West asserted that he has heard that at 78-81 Democrats in Congress are members of the Communist party. 81! Now why does that number sound familiar to me. Oh yeah it’s the same number that the guy he is trying to copy with this insanity, Joseph McCarthy said were loyalty risks in the State Department in 1950. Welcome to the return of McCarthyism! Next thing you know we are going to hear that the master of pointless Congressional hearings, Darrell Issa is going to do a remake of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

It’s the age old tactic of the Republican Party, fear, brought back in its vintage Cold War wrapping. The assertion is quite absurd, but then again so is the Republican Party. Calling anyone who is progressive a Communist is like calling members of the Tea Party a Nazi, a hard core conservative a Fascist or saying that all evangelical Christians wanting to bring about a theocracy. Did West give any names, or say who he heard this from? Of course not. Like most Republicans these days, West doesn’t worry about those troublesome things called facts.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant

This week on a radio interview discussion on the TRAP (Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers) bill he said the following referring to everyone on the left. “Their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb.” Actually if I did have a mission in life it would be to not have vile pieces of trash like you in political office. As far as abortion goes I just support CHOICE. It’s not my choice, but it’s also not my position to put my own choice upon others.

Brian Fischer

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer is going berserk over Mitt Romney choosing an openly gay man as his foreign policy and national security spokesman. Stating that “Gay men have hundreds, if not thousands, of random, frequent, and anonymous sexual encounters and that becomes a significant issue when we’re talking about appointing somebody to a post as sensitive as a spokesman for national security and foreign policy” and then going on to correlate this selection with the Secret Service prostitution fiasco and calling for him to fire his spokesman to “contain the collateral damage from this spectacularly misbegotten decision”

Minneapolis, MN, August 5, 2007 -- Cars and roadway litter the river where the I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis. FEMA/Todd Swain (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Despite the loads of debt talk in American politics recently there’s an interesting thing that’s been going on that a lot of people haven’t noticed: the yield on the 10 year Treasury Note (the main way the government borrows money) has been consistently low.  In fact, it’s been trending downward for months now, despite the debt fiasco from last year.  What does this mean in layman’s terms?  Other people can’t get enough of American debt.  Despite all our problems, people still see US debt as one of the safest things on the planet to invest in, and they’re willing to accept almost no return at all on it.  In fact since inflation is around 2.5% and the yield fluctuates between 2 and 3% investors could actually be losing a bit of money to hold American debt.

There’s another interesting trend that’s been going on longer and only occasionally gets press time when something REALLY bad happens.  That trend is failing infrastructure.  Remember back in 2007 there was quite the tragedy when the I-35 West bridge in Minneapolis, MN collapsed during rush hour.  Thirteen people were killed, a schoolbus of kids almost fell.  Millions were spent in the repair and close to a quarter of a billion dollars was spent on a replacement bridge.  A dozen people were directly put out of work because of the collapse, and possibly hundreds more had reduced hours or were laid off later from the aftermath.  The state of US infrastructure is just now starting to get so much press because so much of it is near the breaking point.  A simple search on “failing infrastructure” on Google News gives 1000 results.  Nearly 70,000 bridges in the US are considered “structurally deficient” at this time, meaning engineers have decided the need major repairs or all-out replacement.  That’s more bridges than there are McDonald’s restaurants.  It’s not just safety, either; Detroit, Orlando, San Diego, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Atlanta, and the big daddy, LA are all meccas of one thing:  Horrible Traffic.  Hundreds of man hours each year can be wasted by just a single person sitting in traffic.  Multiply that times the entire commuting work force.  Don’t care about traffic?  There’s sure to be an infrastructure problem to suit your interest.  The Power Grid needs major overhaul, and just about everything needs electrical power these days.  Cyber Security is also a huge deal these days, a very well-funded and clever organization could probably cause billions in damage and/or losses in just a few hours.

I’m sure some of you are wondering what the Treasury Note and infrastructure have to do with each other, right?  A lot of you see two problems, I see a solution.  If people can’t get enough of debt, let’s give ’em some of ours and use that money to fix what is more vital to our way of life than troops in Afghanistan or the next generation stealth fighter or whatever it is the military spends its trillions on.  As it stands right now America is an obese teenager with Birkenstocks held together with duct tape concerned about buying the latest Glock 9mm handgun.  Not unlike FDRs New Deal, infrastructure problems like these will put people back to work, which will get people spending, which will increase tax revenues, which will give the government more leeway on paying back debt.

I’m sure some of you are thinking it’s stupid to spend at this point in time, but let me put it to you this way:  What’s more fiscally responsible, spending X dollars now to replace something before it breaks, or spending X dollars plus Y lives in the future when that thing breaks, plus have the breakage cost millions more in lost business.  We’re going to pay for it either way, why not pay less before it breaks and ensure safety than wait for it to break and pay many times more?