Time To Make A Choice

There is one thing that "almost" everyone I talk to can agree upon. Whether republican or democrat it seems we have all come to the conclusion that we can't continue to run budget deficits forever.

If you read this and the first thing you want to do is begin blaming one party or the other, don't bother. WE are all to blame.

We can not continue the path we are on. We must either decide to make very deep cuts to social service programs, or raise taxes significantly on EVERYONE. Not just the very rich. Just taxing the rich more wouldn't be enough.

Every dollar taken in in taxes in a year is consumed to pay for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security alone. That leaves every other program and service including DOT, DOD, Treasury, and countless other programs to be funded by loans.

With recent reports of 45 percent of households having at least one member receiving aid from government and nearly half of all people paying zero dollars in taxes, I'm afraid there is no cutting of the programs. At least not without riots in the streets.

All this leaves us in a position where taxes will need to go up dramatically in order to pay our every expanding debts. This could include a VAT tax on top of income taxes, high taxes on corporations (which would likely be very detrimental to business), higher personal income taxes across the board or maybe even all of the above.

How would you solve the problem. Cut programs, raise taxes or a combination of the two.

Just a hint for those of you who would blame Iraq/Afghanistan war operations for the deficit, fine, but realize that ALL the money spent on all the war operations in the last 9 years is still 300 billion less than the budget deficit this year alone. So, you can say we need to stop the wars, and that would be a good start. However, one year's worth of war costs is less than 9 percent of the deficit. We've got a long way to go. It's time to make a choice.

A Liberal Point of View

I have been contemplating for a while whether or not to continue this blog. It isn't that I don't enjoy writing it. I certainly have. I'm just not sure that it is productive. I'm fairly certain the words I write aren't changing any ones opinion regarding the topics covered. Anyway onto the purpose for this post.

I read the following phrase on a blog I follow:

"I feel that people should be able to do what they want UNLESS it is totally distasteful, insensitive or just plain stupid."

This is not a person who lacks the mental capacity to have an intelligent conversation. To the contrary I have found her posts to be well thought and well written, even if I rarely agree.

This quote on the the other hand shows a rather telling lack of foresight. The problems with this line of thought are obvious, and I don't feel the need to explain them. If I do have to explain you won't understand anyway.

Assault on Capitalism

To say that there is an assault on capitalism in this country is an understatement. From the bailouts of wall street and motor companies to the calls for the Venezuela style take over of BP the assault is obvious. I have only two quick thoughts I'd like to share.

1. We don't currently have a capitalist system. The government is intertwined in both banking the motor companies, oil, just about every sector of the economy we see struggling is already highly regulated by our government. The arguments that it was capitalism that led to the economic troubles we see is a fallacy.

2. (And this was the real point of this post) Nearly every day I hear people whining and complaining about how much money the gas stations make on a gallon of gas. I hear people complaining about the cost of health care, insurance... etc.

The same question always remains. If you really believe they have such a high profit margin, then why haven't you opened your own business. You could undercut their price and make money hand over fist. You don't even have to become a doctor. Just open a clinic, hire some docs, charge a lower rate and watch the people flock in your doors. They will be glad you are charging less, and you can swim in all your profits like scrooge mcduck. But you don't. I wonder why. Either you are not willing to take the risk, or you don't really believe what you are claiming.

There is also another option. It is possible that you don't believe there should be a profit allowed. That clinics and doctors should be run as non-profits. In which case you are a hypocrite.

I think your industry should be non-profit.

Arizona Law - Constitutional?

Before we get into this immigration law I'd like to take a moment and give my personal thoughts on immigration. My solution to the Hispanic illegal alien problem is very simple. Armed troops with authority to shoot anyone crossing the border at any place other than an authorized check station. We do this in other police actions to control movement half way around the world. Surely our own borders should be no less a priority. This would be very effective. You only have to step over a few dead bodies before you reconsider your method of entering this country.

Second, we need to make it MUCH easier for immigrants to enter this country to work as productive members of society. I am not against immigration. It is what makes this country strong. I am against illegal aliens crossing our border damaging our social services and creating a drain on our nation.

Now to the Arizona law.

I have two issues with this law that I believe violate your constitutional rights.

1. The law allows police officers to stop and question anyone they "have reason to believe" may be in the country illegally. What could this possibly mean in Arizona other than a hostile environment for anyone of Hispanic dissent. It is very plausible that a single individual driving to work could be stopped multiple times for simple having brown skin. This is the Hispanic version of "driving while black". This is not acceptable.

2. This law requires all individuals to carry on their person documentation showing their immigration status. This could mean a green card for an immigrant, or a social security card or birth certificate for a citizen. The problem with this is that it places the burden of proof on the accused. Rather than the principle accepted by the Supreme Court since the very inception of our country as a the standard of guilt.

This second point brings to mind the gestapo asking you for your papers. You have a right in this country under the 4th amendment to a reasonable degree of privacy and security in your person. In my opinion this law is a clear violation.

Some have criticized my opinion as hypocritical as I want to shoot people crossing the boarder with out due process. Depriving them of their life without a trial constituting a violation of their 5th amendment. To these people I retort that those crossing the border are not citizens of the United States, and therefore not protected by the bill of rights. However I will concede that it may be best to claim a few hundred feet this side of the border as military base property, thereby making a trespass an invasion.

Selling My Home in the New Government Era

About a month and a half ago my wife and I listed our home with a real estate agent. We have been renting for the last few years as we waited for the market to improve. In the mean time we had renters in our home to assist us pay the mortgage. We signed the papers with our realtor on a Friday morning. Friday afternoon she placed the sign in our yard. The house was shown Saturday morning, and that afternoon we had an offer in front of us. Wow, we were happy. While it wasn't quite full asking price, it was close.

{cue the "Imperial March" music}

Enter the government. The buyer of our home is doing so through a government guaranteed loan, so of course there will be an inspection to ensure the house meets minimum requirements. The inspector asked that we:

Replace a few shingles - No problem. I have extras.
Repair flashing around Chimney - Not a big deal.
Update outlets - Sigh. Okay.
Repair cracked window in basement. Fine.

Enter bank appraiser who asks for a vapor barrier under the addition. (This is a 10'x8' room. - Why do they care. It was fine when we bought it 5 years ago.

Enter City inspector who demands we:

Replace all smoke detectors. - Why? They still work! The city just wants new ones.
Replace 60amp electrical box with 120amp. - At this point I'm pulling my hair out. The city is requiring more than even the federal government. Oh by the way, if you don't make all repairs they will not allow the transfer of the deed. UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY?

Of course you have to use their "approved" electricians. (There are only two.) You can't do the work on your own. How can this be constitutional?

It is no wonder the housing market is hurting. The government forces so many regulations that it eats up all your equity, if you are lucky enough to have some.

Is it Time to Repeal the 17th Amendment?

The 17th amendment to the constitution states that United States Senators will be elected by a vote of the people in the states. What else would we do? Well prior to the 17th amendment Senators were chosen by state legislators to represent the state at the federal level. They had control over the U.S. Senator in that they would even tell them how they were expected to vote on various bills.

Originally the people of the states would vote for their U.S. House representatives every 2 years, and the state legislators would appoint a U.S. Senator every 6 years. This gave the people representation in the government, but also allowed the state, as a state, to be represented.

In 1835 8 U.S. Senators were forced by their states to resign from their posts after not following the states will in their voting regarding President Andrew Jackson's war against the Bank of the United States. So you can see that consequences to Senators under this system are swift and severe. Contrast that with today where U.S. Senators only face voters every 6th year.

The 17th amendment was ratified in 1912. It took more than 85 years to become law since the first time it was introduced.

Obama, Not so Concerned With Amendment #4

Not too awful long ago I wrote a post regarding my change of heart concerning the patriot act. Mostly the reason boils down to that I don't believe you can trust the government of the United States, or any government for that matter, to do the right thing. Well that goes for Bush and Obama alike. You may have read the story recently where officials in the Obama administration said the following regarding tracking citizens via their cell phones without a warrant. Here is the full story.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking
is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in
their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts.

In the times we live it seems that privacy really has become something the government believes is not a right. The fourth amendment to the constitution disagrees and reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While cell phones obviously had not been conceived at the time, the word "effects" applies to all your possessions. Including a cell phone and it's where abouts.

Abortion Thoughts

I read a number of blogs of women who are ardently pro-choice. I don’t know why I read them. Perhaps it is just because I like to read the thoughts of people who have a radically different world view than my own. I am bored to tears reading the words of those who I agree with on most every subject. Especially if I disagree with the way the promote their ideas.

For some reason those who are pro-life have been labeled Super-Christians, murderers, haters, and so forth. I wish I could disagree with you, but when I look around I see much of the same even as a pro-life Christian. Here are some of my thoughts.

As a Christian you are called to love others. It is tough to do that standing in front of an abortion clinic holding a sign that calls scared teenage girls murderers.

As a Christian you are called to proclaim the good news of Christ, which is about forgiveness of sin. You are not called to convict others of their sin. That is the Holy Spirits job. You aren’t any good at it anyway.

Abortion is a sin…… So is hating someone. In fact it is the same as murder to God. I wonder if you are guilty of that. As you know, if you have broken just one of the laws you are guilty of breaking the whole law, hence the need for Christ and His good news.

Do I believe abortion is a good thing? No. But I believe as Christians we are fighting the wrong battle. Instead we should love those who are hurting, provide food for those in need. We should provide medical care for those in need, and show the lost world that there is a better way. Not doing so with an air of contempt, but with compassion and understanding.

Women who have had abortions have not done so on a whim, and many times they are hurting over the difficult decision. Standing in front of them calling them murderers is not what Christ would do. He would show compassion. Will you?

American Community Survey

I received my survey in the mail a few days ago and have been mulling it over ever since. At this point I am leaning towards not filling it out. The questionnaire comes with a little pamphlet that portends to tell you why it is so important that you don't simply throw it in the trash. For instance it is used to determine your representation in the House of Representatives and is used for State redistricting purposes. This by the way is the only use outlined by law. It then goes on to say that it is used for the purposes of deciding where new schools and hospitals will be built. No it doesn't. First of all schools are decided on by the local school boards and hospitals are built by private entities. Unless of course our government is planning to take over both sectors of our workforce.

All that is fine and dandy, but all they really need to know is number of people in the house. Perhaps the sex of those living in the house and the ages. That is all, perhaps it would be good to know ethnicity, but I don't see the need.

Question to which I take exception:
House Hold Info:
#1 First and Last Name
Housing:
#1 What best describes this building? (mobile home, single family, apartment, etc)
#2 When was it built?
#3 When did you move in?
#4 How many acres?
#5 What were last year's agricultural sales from the land?
#6 How many rooms?
#8 Is there; hot water, flush toilet, tub or shower, stove, refrigerator, telephone?
#9 How many vehicles are kept at this home?
#10 What fuel do you use for heating?
#11 What is your electric/gas/water/other heating bills?
#12 Did anyone in your house receive food assistance last year?
#13 How much is your condominium fee?
#14 Do you own your home?
#15 How much is your rent?
#16 What is your dwelling worth?
#17 What are your property taxes?
#18 How much is your home owners insurance?
#19 Do you have a mortgage?
#20 Do you have a second mortgage?
PERSON 1:
#7 Where were you born?
#8 Are you a citizen?
#10 Have you attended school or college in the past 3 months?
#11 Education level?
#14 Does this person speak a language other than English?
#15 Previous address?
#16 Does this person have health insurance?
#17 Difficulty hearing or seeing?
#18 Have any physical, emotional, or mental conditions?
#19 Marital status?
#29 Last week did this person work for pay at a job?
#30 Where?
#31 How does this person get to work?
#32 How many people ride to work in the same vehicle?
#33 What time did this person leave for work?
#34 How long does it take to get there?
#41 What type of business did this person work in? (private, non-profit, Gov't, self)
#46 What were this persons duties at work?
#47 What was your income last year?

These are certainly not all the questions that are no business of the government, only the most egregious. A single individual would answer 72 very personal questions if they filled out this questionnaire. Am I the only whack job that has a problem with this? These questions do not serve the purpose of the census as described in the constitution.

Article 1; Section 2; Clause three of the constitution outlines that the census be taken every ten years for the purpose of determining the number of people living in each state. Here is the text if you wish to read it.

Limiting Pay

What would happen if we limit the pay of top executives working for private companies? Why do we want to limit it? If you do limit their pay, Where does it go?

I'll start with why. Why do we want to limit pay? Simple. Anger and jealousy. The masses are angry that wall street executives made loans they new were not wise, made millions of dollars doing so, and then were bailed out by our tax dollars when things went south. The anger is righteous. The solution would have been to let them fail. We are jealous because we see the lifestyles they lead, and believe falsely that if those executives had less the rest of us would have more.

Where would that money go? These are privately owned companies. If the money doesn't go to the executive it would stay in the coffers of the company to be used for various other endeavors like building new offices, expanding services, or perhaps just stay on the books as profit in cash. BUT.... would that really be okay. I mean isn't the point here that these companies are making too much money at the expense of consumers. So, instead a windfall profit tax would be in order. Therefore instead of expanding their business and HIRING more employees, they will shelter it in foreign investments, or have it taken by the government to be given to others.

The myth here is that there is a limited amount of money in the economic pie. Each dollar I have in my pocket is a dollar not available for anyone else. This is only a myth. In reality profits grow the economy and make more jobs available. Deficits shrink the economy and make less jobs available.

It isn't difficult to see what will happen. You can't redistribute money to make all people equally wealthy. You can only redistribute money to make all people equally poor. Understand that if you took ALL the profits from Exxon Mobile at the peak of their profit, each tax payer could get 1 tank of gasoline. Whoopie.

Big Brother Twisting Your Arm

Here it comes, employees of the government will no longer have control of their own bodies. According to this story from Newsday government health employees will not have a choice when it comes to the h1n1 vaccine.

Despite a planned rally in Albany Tuesday to protest a state regulation
requiring health care workers be vaccinated against influenza — both seasonal
and swine flu — New York’s top public
health official predicts dissenters will ultimately extinguish their anger and
roll up their sleeves.
The regulation, which was approved in August, comes
with a stinging addendum: Get vaccinated or get fired.

I have mixed feelings about this because the entire premise is screwed up.

First, I believe the employee/employer relationship works like this; the employer has the right to demand their employees do anything that isn't against the law. For example, many employers do not allow their employees to smoke, and will fire them if they discover they are doing so. They do this based on the premise that smoking employees get ill more often and cause cost increases in insurance. This is fine. If you are not comfortable with what the employer requires then you are free to find employment elsewhere.

In a normal situation the government via the judicial system is there to stand between the employee and employer to ensure there are no breaches of the constitution.

In this case the employer is the government, and as the government gobbles up more and more of the private sector you may soon find yourself unable to escape employer demanded vaccines. Followed presumably by further intrusions into your liberty.

Admitting a Mistake

Directly following 9-11 I was filled with a flood of emotion. They were mixed. My initial reaction was one of fear, but within hours it was replaced with anger and pride. I was indignant that someone would come to my country with an intent of harming my fellow countrymen and women. I can only imagine that others felt the same. At that moment I was willing to hunt them down and string them up for all to see as an example to those who would plot harm against us in the future.

As a nation we reacted much the same way. We gathered up our warriors and sent them on a mission to hunt down those responsible. In addition we passed sweeping legislation nearly immediately granting our government the ability to bypass our bill of rights.

At the time I was on board. I was wrong. At the time I didn't see this as handing over our rights willingly, but rather as a tool to hunt down terrorist. In short I was trusting our government to use the powers it was granted by congress, and thus the people, wisely.

The Patriot Act which had a sunset, but continues to be renewed, says that the FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. It also allows for further investigation by the FBI if they simply don't like the books you are checking out from the library, or what you are writing on your blog for that matter.

This was a mistake. It was passed through Congress based on our fear. We were wrong. We should have headed the warnings of those sounding the alarm that we were giving up our civil liberties.

Do I still believe in hunting down those responsible. Yes. I do not believe we should change who we are to do so.

Gun Toting Hate Mongers

Beginning late in the Clinton administration I've been noticing a growing gulf of ideals between the two major political parties in the United States. From Lewinsky to Bush Lied People Died, to now, town hall meetings with protesters carrying guns. Are these things just an example of citizens exercising their rights to disagree with government? Or, are we growing more and more divisive in our vision for this great country?

Maybe I'm the only right winger willing to be honest about this subject, but the carrying of guns to protest the health care bill is not a simple, "I'm carrying because it is my right to do so." It is instead, "I'm carrying this gun to remind you that the 2nd amendment exists to allow citizens to rise up against a corrupt government." And I'm a supporter.

Of course we don't want to say that is really what the "gun toting" is about. But it is. And that is okay. That is the purpose of the the right to bear arms, so that in the event of a government growing corrupt, the people have a means to remove them, forcibly if necessary, from their positions of power.

Imagine a world without this right. It really is the teeth in the constitution. Pretend if you will for a moment if all guns were removed from the people of this nation. Then imagine that legislators decide all on their own that they will no longer require an election to maintain power. How would you remove them? You couldn't. They would have the force of the military behind them and you would have no means of defense.

Are you okay with that?

If I had Voted for Barack Obama

I can only assume people voted for Barack Obama because they agree with his policy statements. So, if I had voted for President Obama, would I be happy with his performance to this point?

Obama Policy: Pull out the troops from Iraq. Keep them in Afghanistan.
Result: Well, I'm not exactly happy. Obama kept the EXACT time table set forth by Bush. But what else could he do. The war in Iraq was all but over, and the pull out would have been very difficult to have pulled off any sooner. There is now a major thrust in Afghanistan. Just where President Obama said we should be.

Obama Policy: Ensure every American has health care insurance.
Result: He is certainly pushing for it. I'm happy that possibly by next year I will no longer pay for health care what so ever.

Obama Policy: Improve diplomatic relations through talk as opposed to force.
Result: This is certainly what he is trying to do, thought it seems he is alienating some of our closest allies (the Brits, Israel) in an effort to be nice to Iran, Venezuela and others. This is what he said he would do. I'd like it if he could do this without upsetting our long time friends.

Obama Policy: Force "green energy on the public.
Result: While there have been some rumblings about this on a large scale cap and trade doesn't seem to be close to a reality yet. There are vouchers to buy greener cars. That is a step in the right direction. I'd still like to see Obama push to rid the world of coal fire power plants.

Obama Policy: Set up a system that rids us of the old model of "bubble and burst".
Result: Giving money to those troubled companies, and setting up government programs to ensure they are run properly in the future. Using tools like, pay czar, car czar x2. Economy seems to be getting better. Credit goes to Obama.

I guess if I'm an Obama supporter I have to be happy with his performance. I would have to say that as far as campaign promises go, Obama seems to be more serious about keeping them than most presidents. Or perhaps he just has the majorities to get it done.

Government to Monitor Your Blog

Watch what you are saying boys and girls on the blogosphere, Uncle Sam wants to make sure you are on the up and up. According to reports from the AP, The Federal Trade Commission is set to monitor blogs to ensure any product review you make, is not made in exchange for compensation. According to the FTC many bloggers have received $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Apparently under the new regulations which are expected to be approved latter this summer a simple graphic ad with link for which you receive compensation, would be enough to trigger oversight.

Is this really necessary? Are there really throngs of people out there buying products based on anonymous reviews. Where is the personal responsibility? Are we really going to pay people to read and monitor blogs to make sure you aren't getting paid?

If you follow this trail to it's logical conclusion it does not end well for the individual. Imagine you tell your friend to shop at Wal-Mart because they always have the lowest price. (or so they claim) But soon you are being sued by the federal government because you own stock from Wal-Mart from back when you worked there in college. Sure you had forgotten all about it, but never the less, you have an interest in the company.

Perhaps I'm being a bit overly dramatic, but maybe not.

How does Obama Differ from Chavez Again?

I'm sure they're different. I just can't seem to remember how at the moment. Apparently Obama not wanting to be out done by his friend in the southern hemisphere is seeking more power to seize the companies that he has deemed necessary for the American Economy. Here is more from the story written in the LA Times.

Under the plan, expected to be released Wednesday, the government would
have new powers to seize key companies -- such as insurance giant American
International Group Inc. -- whose failure jeopardizes the financial system.
Currently, the government's authority to seize companies is mostly limited to
banks.

So, just to clarify. Chavez bad for seizing privately held companies. Obama good. Hmmm. So I guess Obama gets to decide which companies would jeopardize the financial system if they fail. Or maybe we should appoint a czar for this task. After all Senate approval and over site of something of this magnitude is not really necessary. No, as with all the czars he will answer directly to Obama. I guess we didn't really need the separation of powers, as dictated in our constitution.

2nd Amendment - What is your purpose?

What is the purpose of the second amendment anyway? In many countries they have no second amendment. No right to bear arms. So what was it our forefathers were trying to do when they established this most controversial amendment? Which of the following views do you espouse?

1. They were trying to protect the right of the military to protect us from foreign threats. Since there was no full-time army at the time, soldiers were made of citizens and often times their personal firearms.

Since the government has taken over that roll with a full time military, and provides the soldiers with firepower, there is therefore no need for this antiquated amendment.

2. They were protecting the right of the people to hunt for their food. At the time this was written many families relied on hunting as one of their main sources of food. The founders were attempting to protect that and as such placed it in prominence in the constitution.

Since we now have farm raised beef and other meats readily available at your local grocer there is no longer a need for you as a citizen to stalk off into the woods to bring home a meal for your family. Now you are able to do the same thing in flip flops and t-shirt. Drop your gun off to be disposed of at your local law enforcement office.

3. As the founders had found even the best of governments can grow corrupt over time. They wanted to provide the citizens of this new country a way to rise up against the leaders of this country if they themselves become corrupt.

If you drop by your local gun dealer you will find that firearms are selling quicker than they can be put on the shelves and ammunition is even more scarce. It can be very hard to find certain calibers of bullets. I can only wonder why there are so many people buying these rounds as soon as they are placed on the shelves.

America Gets a Pay Day Loan

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that pay day loans are a bad, I mean really bad idea. I was having a conversation with a co-worker today who told me she is still trying to pay off a pay day loan she had taken out... OVER A YEAR AGO. The loan itself was for 4 thousand dollars, since that time she has paid almost 8 thousand dollars in interest and still has more than 2 thousand remaining on the balance. While my co-worker was wringing her hands trying to figure out how to pay this down, the loan officer at this establishment was wringing his hands trying to figure out where to spend the money.

Will the United States ever pay off the loans we are currently taking out. Can we see anything other than debt on the horizon. Don't get me wrong, I blame Obama, the debt has sky rocketed under him. However, Bush was no Scrooge McDuck.

I imagine a good parent is willing to suffer now in hopes their children will have a better life. Instead we are getting a credit card in our children's name and maxing it out. This is unacceptable.

Shame on you, Associated Press.

What is the Associated Press trying to prove with this story?

The Headline reads, "For Somalis, Piracy Road to Power, Prosperity". That's right ladies and gentlemen the Somali people can not be faulted for taking over a ship and holding it's crew hostage for millions of dollars. What choice do they have? This is the same argument liberals have been using to justify gang violence for years.

The story goes on to say, "For young Somalis, piracy offers a life of adventure and money: At sea, they are armed with automatic weapons, rockets and grenades. On land, they are a cross between a town official and a gangster rapper — with grand houses, luxury cars and beautiful wives." Do you notice how the writer of this story attempts to glamorize the life of a hostage taker, and how you are almost encouraged to sympathize with the plight of the pirate?

Shame on the AP for writing this story, and shame on Fox News for running it. These are terrorists. Or should I say were terrorists.

3 out of the 4 hostage takers were killed by snipers this Easter morning. The 4th surrendered. And yet the headline says that the hostage was "released". No he wasn't released, he was rescued heroically.

I'm so tired of the way the news organizations vilify our military all the while sympathizing with our enemies.

What Do You Want From Your Government?

The basic decision in this year's election is whether you want the federal government to grow, or grow faster. In an effort to provide full disclosure I'll be voting for John McCain tomorrow morning when the polls open, however, if there were a candidate on the ticket who would shrink government, I'd be voting for them. And I don't mean a candidate who has no hope of attaining the presidency.

I feel like an orphan at this point. Left on the door step of the monastery by W, now 4 years later they are coming back pandering for my vote. Sad part is that just like an abused child who no matter how injured by the parent, continues to seek after their approval. Okay I'm getting off topic. Here is what I want my government to do.

1. Provide a military so powerful no one dares threaten our security.

2. Provide for a court system to settle disputes both civil and criminal.

3. Provide an interstate transportation system second to none.

4. Protect citizens abroad.

5. Ensure states make no law infringing on rights granted in the constitution and bill of rights.

I do not want my federal government to get involved in:

1. The economy

2. Education

3. Making life fair

4. Health care

5. Providing a safety net

If a state wants to get involved in those areas, great. As long as they don't infringe on your rights. What do you want your federal government to "do" for you?