- Posted by Piperyell on September 22, 2008
It was about 6 years ago when I first started to realize
that our civil liberties are degrading here in the U.S. It was at dinner one
night with my Wife’s family. Her Uncle was talking to me about the prisoners at
Guantanamo Bay. I was someone that accepted the Patriot act as a necessity of
war. But the more I thought about the encroachment of Government in our lives
the more concerned I became.
The latest issue disturbing my sleep has to do with the Communications
companies and the wiretapping and data mining cooperation with the NSA. Let me
briefly describe the issue.
What is the issue?
In October 2001 the Bush administration began a surveillance
program which allows the NSA to conduct wiretapping, and electronic surveillance
of American citizen’s telephone and internet communications without a warrant,
or statutory authorization. This is done with the full cooperation of the
communication companies. After an AT&T employee named Mark Klien came forward
with evidence that the NSA with help from AT&T were intercepting and
analyzing millions of citizen’s communications, you would have thought that the
proverbial stuff would have hit the fan. Well, it did not.
Certainly the Democrats have put a stop to this!
Not even close. This is exactly what they Democrats have
been screaming about since they realized that the Patriot act would get them in
trouble if ever the voters found out what it really was. This is their chance
to show voters that they are really on our side, not on the side of Special Interest
or Lobbyists. The Dems have had a chance
to stand up to Bush since 2006, and have done nothing to end the constant and
blatant violation of our civil rights. But wait the Communications companies
are really large contributors…
But Obama isn’t like the other Lifelong Politicians…
In an interview in June 2008 with ABC News Senior National
Correspondent Jack Tapper, Obama said "I haven't opposed, for example, the
national security surveillance program, the NSA program," adding that he
believed the program could be done without violating the Constitution. Here is the full interview. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5178123
But that is exactly what is going on. It is violating the
constitution. Are you just waiting until you get elected? What if you lose? I
thought you were this great proponent for change, and when you have the chance
to rally the Democrats to get off of their pampered politician bottoms and do
something, you do not make the call. He is the figure head of the party now
with more of a bully pulpit than ever. Disappointing.
And even worse…
There is a recent amendment to the FISA that, for one thing,
removes the Communication Companies liability. 22 Democrat Senators voted yes.
We have come to expect this from the Republicans, but those of you that think
the Democrats are any different, then, at least in this very important situation, theyclearly are not. Please encourage everyone to become increasinly concerned with this issue and place addition pressure on our elected officials to stop this now. You can do all of that by voting Libertarian!
Thanks for reading, and as always I would love to see some comments.
Yell
- Posted by Piperyell on September 22, 2008
This post is a little different than others, I felt like sharing an actual
experience that I had while working at a Cafe in Encino Ca. in the mid 90's.
This was a nice cafe that sat bout 150. The food was mostly wood fire pizzas,
fresh salads and pasta. An average entree was about $8 with lunch and Happy
hour specials. I was one of the bartenders. I mixed drinks for the whole cafe
and gave full service to the bar guests.
For most food service employees, you work for minimum wage + tips (wait
staff, and bussers). Dishwashers usually start at minimum, and get a raise in a
few months. CA. has a law that says you must provide benefits for full time
employees, so the schedules usually consisted of 30 - 35 hours. In 1996 there
was a minimum wage increase of $.50 in CA. The owner of the Cafe laid off
one of our dishwashers, and now 2 had to do the work of 3. I found that curios.
The very guy that this was designed to help, lost his job. Here's why: Let's
say that there were 20 minimum wage employees. their pay was increased by $10
for every hour of labor. 6 hours of labor a day x 30 days = an increase of
$1800 a month. Not everyone worked every day, so we can say $1,500 is a
closer number.
So this cafe owner, had his payroll increased by over a thousand dollars a
month. Not because he was getting better work from his employees, not because
his sales were up because of the hard work everyone put in, but because
California said so. And to make up for that increase, he laid off an employee.
Don't you think that guy would have proffered to have his job at the minimum
wage, knowing that he would get a raise if he did well? Or that he could have
worked his way up to prep cook, or something else?
The argument is always "you can't make a living on a minimum wage
job." I agree, But you can't make a living with no job. This wasn't a
corporate fat cat that will walk away with several million dollars even if the
business fails, this was a guy who owned a restaurant. Are we willing to hurt one
employee to help two? I'm not going to say raising the minimum wage raises
unemployment, but it did for this dishwasher.
In New Mexico during the mid 1950's my Grandfather stopped farming and took
his family to town and got a simple job at a general store. He was able to buy
a house (with indoor plumbing), eventually buy a T.V., a washing machine, and
live the American dream. He started at minimum wage. Why was it easier
then?
Why could a man support his family easier 50 years ago than it is now? What
has changed? Could it be the increased tax burden on us all? I'm not talking
about just income tax, but SS tax, gas tax, utilities tax. Many of these are
not charged to the lower class because of exemption programs. But middle class
small entrepreneurs are the ones employing these workers, not corporations. It
has become increasingly harder for them.
I would love to receive comments about this. I saw it happen, and it was
because of the minimum wage increase. This was one of the first real life
situations that convinced me that we are all connected in this economy. We
cannot shift the burden around without affecting us all. The only real answer
as I see it is to shrink the overwhelming need for the massive tax revenue,
thus allowing us all some breathing room.
Thanks for reading,
Yell
- Posted by Piperyell on September 19, 2008
Should the Federal Government bail out the Banks?
My initial Libertarian reaction is “Hell No.” But, as I said in my first post, things are rarely that simple. So, let’s explore this issue a little more in depth. I am also disappointed in the resolutions that both McCain and Obama have proposed.
I will first list the argument for:
The jump in the Stock Market the last the 2 days is proof that that the Federal Government has done the right thing. If we don’t bail out the Banks then the economy goes into a free fall and we go back to the Great Depression.
WOW! That sounds serious, and it is serious. So let me start at the top. I am a firm believer in Free Market, and Laissez-faire government. I believe that the market, left alone, will take care of itself. To bail out these greedy Banks that offered people Million dollar mortgages for $1500/month is wrong. It removes any accountability, and prevents more responsible banks from purchasing the non-defaulted loans cheaply and rebuilding. Bail outs are just a Band Aid on a Bullet hole, and hurt us all in the long run. Not to mention we will ALL have to pay for the mistakes of some greedy executives.
Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr says “Capitalism involves losses as well as profits," Barr explains. "When government tries to insulate businesses and investors from paying for their mistakes, we all lose. In a Barr administration, there would be no more corporate bailouts or takeovers."
What about all of the lost Jobs?
The U.S. Unemployment rate has been less than 6% since 1995. Only Japan has had lower unemployment. This would be manageable, and good employees will find jobs for better and more market stable companies.
What about the stock market?
As it stands now, Investors distrust the mortgage companies. After a bail out, do they trust them more? Any rise or fall in the stock market temporary. Imagine if the banks had to use best practices or they would go out of business? Don’t you think they would have better judgment?
Why is it just the big Companies that get bailed out?
We never hear about smaller companies getting “help” from the Feds? Why do the big Companies deserve it more?
What about regulation?
Regulation is another way of removing accountability. Who decides what is best for all of us? If a Bank wants to take a risk, they should be allowed. This is supposed to be a free market. If that risk does not work out, they must accept the consequences.
Please leave comments. I would love to hear from anyone.
- Posted by Piperyell on September 18, 2008
Hello, My name is Yell McGuyer.
I thought it only fair to tell you about any affiliations I have, and what
my core beliefs are.
I am a registered Republican with strong Libertarian views. I say that I am
99% libertarian. I struggle to find much to disagree with within the
Libertarian platform. I voted for Ron Paul in the California Republican
primaries, and I plan on voting for Bob Barr in the upcoming Presidential
election.
What does that mean?
That means that any criticism I have for a candidate is sincere. I am not
demonizing McCain because I don't want a Republican in the White house, nor
will I simply tear down Obama because I don’t want a Democrat in the White
house. I consider both candidates, and parties, to be part of the problem. Neither
represents me or my ideas of a solution. I do not believe in voting for a
candidate simply as a vote against the other candidate.
If you would like to know more about the Libertarian party, please visit http://www.lp.org/
- Posted by Piperyell on September 17, 2008
Overview
I think that we can all agree that there are no simple issues in the news today. Many times we read truncated and simplified stories written to give us the quick story. This is often not enough to make informed decisions. We often find ourselves surrounded by likeminded individuals, and have trouble understanding what the opposition could be thinking. This is my attempt to bring some people together that might not otherwise discuss politics.
Moderation
I will be moderating this blog. Any posts that are of an obscene nature will be removed. I will also respond to blogs as much as I can. There is no reason for rudeness, so let's keep it intellectual.