FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Aug 19

Why Minimum Wage Still Remains an Important Issue in North America

by bcurry

Here we go again! Controversy has surfaced over discussions in Canada and the U.S. over raising the existing minimum wage levels at the federal, state and provincial levels. In both countries, minimum wages differ among states and provinces. In the U.S., the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour. In Canada, minimum wages vary among provinces: the highest being in the territory of Nunavut at $11.00 per hour to the lowest in Alberta at $9.75 per hour. The current provincial average rate in Canada is around $10.00. There is no Canadian federal minimum wage for industries under federal jurisdiction, as the federal government has simply adopted provincial minimum wages in its labour standards legislation.

In his February 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama urged Congress to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9, saying the move would reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. As usual, critics argue that increasing the minimum wage would raise businesses’ costs and, in turn, reduce the number of employees they could hire. However as noted by the Department of Labor, the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981. When adjusted for inflation the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s, and more than $10 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s.

This brings us to the question of what is a minimum wage and how is it determined? Originally, minimum wages tended to be calculated based on some percentage of the average industrial wage. For example, one may have desired it to be set at 50 or 60 percent of the average industrial wage. Today according to Statistics Canada, the average hourly wage in Canada for persons 15 years and older is $23.75. In the U.S., the average hourly wage in the private sector is around $24.00. However, what has happened over the recent decades has been a lag in minimum wage levels when compared to yearly increases in industrial wages. Indeed, average minimum wages have rarely even kept pace with inflation rates, not being adjusted for the annual cost of inflation increases. Instead, increases in minimum wage rates are dependent on governments to prescribe in law, a process often taking place over the course of several years.

We are now no longer talking about a “living wage”. How can a family of four expect to live comfortably in an urban setting on one income based on a minimum wage? At or slightly above the poverty line, this is why there are so many families with both couples working: often referred to as the “working poor”. With the loss of good paying jobs in manufacturing in particular, the so-called “middle class” is slowing shrinking. Many unemployed persons are forced to seek employment in the retail and services sectors where minimum wages play a much greater role in effectively determining wages.

Moreover, politicians are less likely to be influenced by anti-poverty groups than by industry lobbyists. Recently, members of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in Canada stated that almost 20 percent of Ontario workers were forced below the poverty line in the three years since the provincial Liberal Government froze the minimum wage at $10.25 per hour. ACORN’s province-wide campaign is calling for the rate to be immediately increased to $14, reflecting the rise in inflation since 2010. A Minimum Wage Advisory Panel, appointed by the Liberals in July 2013, is examining a potential provincial minimum wage increase in 2014. However, one can be certain that industry representatives will once again raise the age-old specter of increased unemployment in those sectors where minimum wages are currently used as base income levels. As in the U.S., it is very unlikely that there will be any significant changes to minimum wage rates in Ontario or in Canada. Perhaps, it’s about time for Ontario to take the lead and ensure that workers are entitled to a real “living wage”.

Minimum Wages Minimum Wages

Leave a comment »
Aug 1

Afghanistan: Good Investment or Sink Hole and Lost Cause

by bcurry

Well, here we are over ten years later and one is still uncertain as to what has been accomplished in Afghanistan. Let’s look at a few facts:

• In 2013, $4.7 billion U.S. is being allocated for the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), an amount that the U.S. government can’t continue to expend.

• Questions about the ability of the ANSF to provide the necessary security against future Taliban attacks and incursions continue to surface.

• How many American troops will be permanently assigned there after 2014 is still up in the air, and to what effect?

• The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have to date never issued a remotely credible report on the progress and impact of the civilian surge or any aspect of the civil aid program.

• Amid complaints of corruption, support among the populace for President Hamid Karzai’s government continues to be weak.

• Beyond Kabul, Afghan warlords are still in control of much of the country, often financed by the ongoing drug trade and American contract monies.

• Support from other NATO countries for the so-called reconstruction phase in Afghanistan is luke warm.

• It appears that any real meaningful negotiations with the Taliban are not likely to happen any time real soon. Especially as the Taliban are patiently awaiting the withdrawal of foreign troops and the level of trust on both sides is extremely low.

• The Taliban are not viewed by locals in the same way as al-Qaeda was, al-Qaeda having all but disappeared from the landscape.

• The Taliban are securely entrenched in Pakistan where the authorities are unable and unwilling to deal with the insurgents.

Have there really been any significant changes within Afghan society over the past ten years? It would appear from recent evidence that the answer is a strong “no”. Recent interviews by journalists of the New York Times with dozens of Afghan youth paint a picture of a new generation bound to their society’s conservative ways; especially when it comes to women’s rights, one of the West’s single most important efforts in the country. Attempts to alter women’s roles in society remain controversial among the younger generation. In addition, many Aghans consider democracy a tool of the West. The vast majority of Afghans still rely on tribal justice, viewing the courts as little more than venues of extortion. There continues to be strong support for adherence to Shariah law in Afghanistan, much of which actually comes from tribal traditions. Afghanistan is still an ancient and poor country with tribal ways, always suspicious of western ways and culture.
What does all this mean? Afghanistan has become a continuous burden to the American taxpayer, a real sink hole. Obama and other western leaders had better get out while they can, and let the Afghans resolve their own issues and employ their own measures. Only then, can they realistically determine their future, whatever that might be. I don’t think that we can afford another ten years of the same.

Afghanistan

Leave a comment »
Jul 11

Quebec’s Deadly Train Derailment At Lac-Megantic Is Only Tip of the Iceberg

by bcurry

The horrendous derailment of tank cars carrying thousands of liters of crude oil and the resulting explosion and fire killing dozens of people in the small community of Lac-Megantic represent a further reminder of the dangers of transporting hazardous materials through populated areas. In addition, waves of crude oil were dumped into nearby water bodies in what officials call an unprecedented environmental disaster for the province of Quebec.

According to the American Association of Railways Rail, such shipments of crude oil have increased enormously since 2008 when 9,500 carloads were shipped. Last year, crude oil shipments topped 230,000 carloads. That figure is expected to jump again this year with first quarter shipments already at 97,000 carloads. On top of which, the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington reported that older, unsafe tank cars make up about 70 percent of the existing North American fleet — and that those cars will be on the rails for decades. These older tank cars have a service life between 30 and 40 years and the industry is apparently resisting the billion-dollar-plus price tag to retrofit them. As well, getting the new stock is expected to be a very slow process given the current back orders in the industry.

In 2008, a parliamentary committee investigating railway safety in Canada stated that it had “serious concerns” about delays and the manner in which railway safety management systems have been implemented by railway companies and the federal government. More recently, agencies such as the Canadian Transportation Safety Board and federal Environment Commissioner issued scathing audits raising safety concerns over the transportation of dangerous goods by rail. However, the Board and Environment Commissioner can only make recommendations to the government based on their findings. It is up to the government and the responsible departments, in this case Transport Canada, to respond to their recommendations with changes in policies, legislation and regulatory practices. Furthermore, it has been more than five years since the last federal comprehensive safety review of the rail industry. While a number of their recommendations have since been implemented by the government, the freight-rail industry continues to evolve particularly as a result of the above-noted rapid growth in moving crude oil by rail.

The primary problem is with the government’s past and current policy aimed at deregulation of the transportation industry, making it primarily industry’s responsibility to implement effective safety policies and practices. With deregulation and in light of the industry’s growth, there are fewer inspectors to carry out safety inspections and to follow up on corrective measures by employers where safety violations are uncovered. Moreover, the government relies heavily on the industry to police itself. Yet, as we have witnessed in Canada, the series of derailments involving dangerous goods in recent years, including that at Lac-Megantic, have demonstrated that greater enforcement and regulator activity is really what is needed. Otherwise, more such tragic incidents will occur with both significant human and environmental impacts. Be it rail cars or pipelines, governments have been far to slow to respond to the increasing dangers, suggesting that Canadians and Americans will themselves have to step forward and demand better policing and mitigation measures.

Transport of Oil

Leave a comment »
Jun 20

Justin Trudeau’s Speaking Engagements and the Prime Minister’s Office

by bcurry

Well, here we go again. It appears that the taxpayer-funded Prime Minister’s Office (aka PMO) has nothing better to do but to lead a campaign to disparage a Member of Parliament (MP) from one of the opposition parties. Now, one must remember that the powerful PMO is responsible for almost everything to do with the PM, in this case Stephen Harper. In fact, the PMO calls the shots for much of what the Conservative government is doing or saying in the legislature and in public. It is the exclusive operational arm of the executive. Indeed, it appears to have so much influence that even a number of Conservative back benchers have complained about the PMO’s obsession with control.

Among the PMO’s latest activities is the apparent spearheading of partisan attacks against the Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau. Remember that recent polls have shown that Trudeau represents a real potential threat to the ruling Conservatives in the next election, his popularity being even greater than that of the PM. Due to his popularity and charismatic attributes, the younger Trudeau is often invited by various groups to speak at events, including those promoting a charitable cause. As an MP, Trudeau is in his right to be paid for such speaking engagements, as long as they are reported the federal ethics watchdog Mary Dawson. However, the Conservatives have tried to depict his acceptance of speaking fees as being unethical, particularly where charitable organizations are involved. I have no problem with such partisan political meanderings, but please do it on your own dime and not mine.

It appears that the PM and his staff are treating the PMO as an extension of the Conservative Party’s machinery. Recognizing that the PMO is staffed with party cronies, it is however paid for out of the public purse. The PMO’s chief administrative responsibility is to coordinate the ruling party’s agenda in Cabinet and in Parliament and to liaise with the federal bureaucracy. However, the PMO today has become much more as a result of exercising an inordinate amount of control over the Conservative caucus, Cabinet ministers and the party’s members of parliament. This obsession of Stephen Harper with absolute control has exasperated even members of his own party, to the point where one member recently left the caucus to sit as an independent. Under threat of excommunication, MPs are not allowed to speak their own minds or to speak out of turn either in the legislature or in public. Big brother is watching.

Using the PMO to spearhead political attacks on opposition leaders and to deflect recent negative publicity surrounding the Conservative government’s inappropriate behaviour and abuse of powers is unacceptable and dangerous. It’s about time that Canadians wake up to the bastardization of parliamentary institutions by this government. Elected on the promise of greater transparency and accountability, control-freak Harper has demonstrated even more secrecy and lack of openness in his administration. What’s worse is that the other parties may be becoming just as control conscious!!! So much for independence of thought.

Canada Federal Government Justin Trudeau Political Scandals

Leave a comment »
Jun 6

Arms Trade Treaty – Canada Ready to Shoot Itself in the Foot Once Again

by bcurry

Recently, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird invoked the country’s former long-gun registry as the Conservative Government refused to say when or even if Canada will sign a treaty aimed at stemming the flow of illegal weapons and ammunition around the world. His argument is that the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, approved by an overwhelming majority of countries in the UN’s General Assembly, would resurrect the long-gun registry “through the backdoor.” Remember, the Conservatives scrapped the national long-gun registry last February, claiming that the registry only hurt law-abiding sportsmen and law-abiding hunters and farmers. This despite the fact that a survey conducted exclusively in October 2010 for Postmedia News and Global Television found that public support for the registry stood at 66 percent nationally. As well, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police had unanimously endorsed a new national firearms policing strategy and had publicly pushed the need for the National Firearms Registry.

While this became Canada’s national policy, the proposed Treaty has nothing to do with domestic gun owners’ rights. Even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has stated that the Treaty will not undermine the legitimate international trade in conventional weapons, interfere with national sovereignty or infringe on the rights of American citizens, including Second Amendment rights. It is designed to prevent the illegitimate arms trade, particularly as it affects third world countries. However, should the U.S. administration sign the Treaty, it will still have to be ratified by Congress. Good luck!!!

Meanwhile, the current Canadian government openly fought the proposed Treaty as it now stands. This despite the fact that the previous Liberal government had been a strong proponent of the Treaty during preliminary discussions at the U.N. Ridiculously, the Conservatives are even pushing for language in the Treaty’s preamble affirming “respect” for the lawful ownership of firearms by private citizens. Specifically, Canada has asked that the treaty recognize the use of “firearms for recreational purposes, such as sport shooting, hunting and other similar forms of lawful activities.” Moreover, Canada today stands out as one of only a few countries — including Israel — pushing for recognition in the Treaty of lawful public ownership and recreational use of firearms.

Last March, newly released documents showed that Canadian officials had been instructed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government to “play a low-key, minimal role” — and that their main objective was safeguarding Canadian gun owners’ rights. Now, what does this have to do with the illegal international trade in small guns and ammunition? Let’s face it, we’re not talking about hunting rifles here. The Treaty is all about trying to come to grips with the on-going trade in military-type weaponry. The landmark Arms Trade Treaty approved by the General Assembly on April 2, 2013, is aimed at regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. Yes, it would include the tracking by ratifying countries of all arms trade, including that from Canada. How such tracking provides any potential “backdoor” resurrection of a domestic long-gun registry is anyone’s guess!! Sorry, Canada. You may have just left the “front door” wide open to cries of hypocrisy and subsequent further international alienation. On this one, you’re up the proverbial creek in the eyes of your allies. For shame, for shame.

Arms Trade Treaty Canada w

Leave a comment »
May 22

Leadership: It’s Not Only About What You Know, It’s Also About What You Don’t Know

by bcurry

“The buck stops here” is a phrase that was popularized by U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who kept a sign with that phrase on his desk in the Oval Office. Well, in the last few weeks, we’ve learned from President Obama and Prime Minister Harper that the buck appears to stop elsewhere. Sorry, but among the principal attributes of good leadership is setting the tone and establishing the culture for an organization, be it public, private or non-profit. This means that it isn’t always what a leader is aware of but what he or she is not aware of that is important.

In the case of President Barack Obama, it was his apparent lack of awareness of the pending release of the IRS Inspector General’s scathing report criticizing the IRS handling of claims by conservative groups for tax exemption as non-profit “social welfare” organizations. In the case of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it’s his claims to a lack of knowledge about recent substantial monies gifted to Senator Mike Duffy by his own trusted Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright. Senator Duffy, a Conservative appointee, is involved in the Senate scandal about living and travel expenses, and now sits as an independent in the Senate. The PM apparently denies having any knowledge of what may very well have been a criminal act, and one resulting in the subsequent resignation by Mr. Wright. Now this is a PM who in 2005 vowed to run an accountable and totally transparent government if elected.

In both cases, these national leaders pledged to run ethical and transparent administrations. Thus, like any good leaders, their respective values should be reflected under their administration. In turn, they are accountable to their parties and to the electorate for any and all activities undertaken during their administration. It is not enough to simply deny knowledge of illicit activities and irregularities. Leaders should own up to their general responsibilities for good governance and ensure that those responsible are dealt with under the full force of the law if warranted. Simply making excuses does not cut the mustard!!! Ultimately denying responsibility is not an option, for as President Truman professed: the buck stops at the top.

Leadership Political Scandals Political Scandals

Leave a comment »
May 17

IRS Scandal Is Really About Granting Tax-Exempt Status To Groups Participating In Politics

by bcurry

I’m not an American, but in reviewing the political system, one cannot help but notice the growing influence of large political-oriented bodies in recent elections. Big donors were given the green light to spend freely on elections by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Everyone remembers those infamous super PACs which ran many of the costly attack ads for both presidential candidates during the last election. Moreover, the 2012 presidential election broke the $2 Billion milestone in its final weeks, becoming the most expensive in American political history. Super PACs supporting Obama and Romney alone spent more than $500 million in media ads. Politically oriented organizations that do not have to declare their finances or identify their fundraisers have spent hundreds of millions on so-called issue ads. No other democratic country that I know of goes through such incredible campaign costs as do the presidential elections in the States, and allows so-called non-profit “social welfare” organizations to engage so extensively in political activities and continue to be tax exempt.

According to the U.S. tax code non-profit “social welfare” organizations are normally those that benefit the community. Such organizations should usually include religious groups, cultural, educational and veterans organizations, homeowners associations and volunteer fire departments. However in recent years, it appears that, partly as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, more overtly political groups have been claiming non-profit status. Such status would allow them to keep their donor lists secret and to avoid paying taxes on certain income. Critics note that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) hasn’t done nearly enough over the years to rein in the subversion of the tax law by political groups claiming a tax exemption that is not legally permitted for campaign activity. Nor has it been able to enforce rules requiring that donors to those groups pay gift tax on their donations. This is just the way that big donors to political bodies like it, otherwise donations could quickly dry up.

Recently the IRS was alleged to be targeting the more conservative organizations, notably any incorporating names such as Tea Party, Constitution or Patriots. The IRS is accused of being “overly aggressive” in its handling of requests by conservative groups for tax-exempt status. At the same time, the IRS has been dealing with austerity measures that reduce or stagnate personnel and resources, while trying to deal with a backlog of tax-exempt claims involving hundreds of groups. So-called conservative groups represented but a third of recent claims. Consequently, criteria was introduced by the IRS providing a screening shortcut meant to help with the influx of applications following the Court’s decision. However, more extensive screening meant longer delays in the approval of claims, frustrating many of the groups, conservative or otherwise. All of this came out in the IRS Inspector General’s scathing report released earlier this month.

Republicans in Congress have jumped all over the report and called for heads to roll, claiming that the Obama administration was of course behind the IRS’s activities. Denying any involvement, the administration countered by blaming a few “rogue employees” in the IRS for abuses and bureaucratic mishandling of the process. Needless-to-say, the President called the agency’s misconduct was “inexcusable”, and the acting IRS Commissioner was forced to resign. U.S. Attorney General ordered a criminal investigation into the situation and informed a congressional hearing on the matter that investigators will look at the conduct of IRS offices nationwide. All this and more to come!

However, let’s go back to the beginning. What is the real problem? It would appear to me that the whole definition of non-profit “social welfare” organizations needs to be revisited and clarified. At some point the incredible amount of interest group funding to electoral campaigns and congressional lobbying on specific issues has to become accountable and reasonable. Greater transparency and public oversight has to be brought into the equation. Of course, no one wants to trounce upon anyone’s democratic rights, but the current subterfuge of beneficiaries of such tax breaks has to end. Simply blaming the civil servants who have a tough enough job to do is not the answer. Fix the system.

Conservative Political Groups US

Leave a comment »
May 11

Recent Scandals Further Support the Need to Eliminate Canada’s Senate

by bcurry

Well, don’t say that I didn’t warn you! (See blog of March 3, 2013) Recent Senate scandals have simply further demonstrated that the so-called second chamber of sober thought is a waste of tax payers’ money and our political support. Let’s review. Three Senators — Marc Harb, Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy – have been found by a Senate committee to have filed improper travel and housing expense claims with a value worth tens of thousands of dollars. Although the same committee has ordered these three gentlemen to repay the amounts claimed, there are still others within Parliament who are calling for a police investigation into a matter — now viewed by many as a clear case of fraudulent conduct. One other Senator is also being audited for past travel expense claims worth thousands of dollars over a number of years. Heck, if it were you or me, we’d be in jail by now.

Here we have individuals, no-elected but appointed by the Governor-in-General on the recommendation of the Government of the day, earning close to a quarter of a million dollars a year in annual salaries, expense reimbursements and other benefits including access to huge pensions upon retirement. Referred to as “honourable members” of the Senate, up until now they have simply been allowed to submit all kinds of claims based on a so-called “honour system”. Talk about a sweet deal! On top of which Senators do not have to be in the Senate during all sessions, and attendance is not a prerequisite to being paid. Even a better deal.

Granted there are a few worthwhile honourable members, but the majority are political hacks appointed by the ruling party to quietly and quickly push its legislative agenda through the Parliamentary process. Given the growing power of and control by the PM and Prime Minister’s Office, the Senate increasingly is but a rubber stamping machine to the Executive’s wishes. Simply moving to an elected second house will do nothing really to correct this situation as long as committees of the House of Commons don’t have any real powers to revise or veto government bills. The provinces and other jurisdictions have managed quite well to legislate without the need for a second level of scrutiny. After all, that’s what the parliamentary opposition is for, and why the final say is given to the electorate. So come on Canada, get with it and save yourselves a few very needed bucks and scarce resources. Abolish the Senate and get on with some real Parliamentary reform, restoring accountability and genuine representation to our governing institutions. Let’s have our own Canadian tea party!!!

Canada The Senate

Leave a comment »
May 6

After the Past Year, We’re Only Now Going to Seriously Talk About Climate Change!

by bcurry

Well, now that there have been enough serious accidents at the corner, let’s put up some traffic lights. So goes the continuing story of the human race in its often slow reaction to extreme events. The same can be said to our response to recent extreme weather events around the world, and especially in North America. Indeed, a recent survey reported on by Postmedia News indicated that of those Americans surveyed, 58 percent believe “global warming is affecting weather in the United States”. 85 percent of respondents claimed they experienced extreme weather during the last year. Even some Republicans surveyed now want action on climate change, although many continue to deny that it’s a scientific fact.

Scientists and non-scientists at least now fully agree that emerging weather patterns are proving to be consistent with climate-change predictions. So what’s the hang-up? Surely, it’s time for American and Canadian politicians to get really earnest about tackling what is the most important environmental and number one issue of our times and that of our children. Come on folks, climate affects everything societal, economic and political!!!

While we pay lip service to clean forms of energy and green technologies, we still continue to spew all kinds of crap into our air. In 2009, the Canadian government launched a plan to spend $1 billion over a five year period on clean energy research and demonstration projects, with an emphasis on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, according to Climate Action Network Canada, the Federal Government yearly continues to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to the companies producing oil and gas. Analysis shows a total of $1.4 billion per year in federal subsidies, $840 million of which are special tax breaks, with a disproportionate share going to dirty fuels such as the Alberta Tar Sands. It is estimated that the oil and gas industry alone accounts for about 20% of all Canadian greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the U.S., half of its electricity generation is still provided by coal-burning plants. As well, as indicated by various government reports, the American oil industry receives tax breaks averaging about $4 billion a year. There appears to be a contradiction in both approaches being taken here!

I’m no expert on climate change, and neither are the vast majority of politicians. However, the science speaks for itself, as well as our own everyday weather observations. It would seem that an increasing majority of citizens-voters believe that governments and industry need to do something sooner than later. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to get this one right.

Canada Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Apr 29

How Sequester Shows That Washington Doesn’t Give a Dam!

by bcurry

The media reported that as of April 1rst cancer clinics began turning away thousands of Medicare patients because of budget ‘sequestration’ spending cuts. Budget sequestration is a procedure in United States law that limits the size of the federal budget. Sequestration involves setting a hard cap on the amount of government spending within broadly-defined categories. If Congress enacts annual appropriations legislation that exceeds these caps, an across-the-board spending cut is automatically imposed on these categories, affecting all departments and programs by an equal percentage (e.g. 10%). As a result of sequestration and the inability of the Democrats and Republicans to resolve the nation’s current budget problems, Americans are suffering. For example, the recent flight delays of up to three hours or more resulted from the furloughing of air traffic controllers to the point where a reported 15,000 controllers were off the job at the same time at many of the largest U.S. airports. It’s as if Washington doesn’t give a dam about how much harm is being inflicted on Americans for blatant political gain. The situation with the cancer patients is just the latest and most alarming example of how sequestration has started to harm important government functions. Even as billions of dollars in taxpayer money are still being spent on hundreds of wasteful government programs – many of which have been documented by the Government Accountability Office.

What’s most galling about all this is that despite the real harm the sequestration cuts are causing, wasteful government spending has continued unabated. Yes, monies are being wasted outrageously on such important studies as to why fruit flies fall in love, the sex life of snails, recepies for foods which astronauts could prepare while visiting Mars, the improvement of golfers’ putting by imagining the hole is bigger, how to get your pet’s fur to smell better through the better use of pet toiletries, etc. etc.

As Washington continues to show disdain for its citizens and taxpayers, Americans increasingly are demonstrating disdain and cynicism towards Capital Hill. Surely, Congress and the President can work out their differences before something really bad happens, especially in areas related to public health and safety! It’s time to stop this farce and insanity and get on with running the country in some rational and reasonable manner. I am certain that the majority of Americans would support all sides working together at this important time in their history.

Sequestration US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.