BLOG: What’s the Harm in Same-Sex Marriage?

Posted on by August 30, 2015

I saw this story today about aVermont Inn that was fined $30,000 for being honest with potential customers about their objections to same sex marriage (a more complete timeline can be seen here).

The MN marriage amendment should not be so controversial. Its passage or failure will not directly change state law. It is, as supporters claim, simply an attempt to solidify and affirm existing law, and place major changes to the institution of marriage out of the reach of an activist judiciary.

Amendment opponents and GLBT activists constantly claim that there is no “harm” in same-sex marriage. Honest opponents will admit that they will not be satisfied with its failure. Their goal is “full equality” under the law. This case in Vermont highlights one hazard in the proposition that the state should be able to make illegal what should be a matter of conscience.

If the marriage amendment fails, and “equality” is enacted, yet another small group of people with a grievance will be granted a legal weapon to coerce and punish those who disagree with them. As seen in Vermont, that weapon can be used to force people to keep their opinions to themselves.

I say the power to silence those who disagree with me is a fearsome weapon.

I will be voting “yes”.

 

Dangerous Power Grab

Posted on by June 28, 2014

Defense secretary Leon Panetta is agitating for national, “comprehensive” cyber security legislation again. (Panetta warns of ‘Shamoon’ virus)

I have spent my life inside the guts of computers.  From large mainframes to embedded processors, for the last 30+ years, I have worked on everything from application programs to operating systems.  Very little has stayed the same over those years, but one thing that never changes is that there are always  “security problems”, and people who want to impose some external “controls” on your computers to fix them.  As I outlined here (Cyber War – The Drumbeat Continues) this is neither necessary nor even helpful.  The proposed solutions to this “problem” would actually reduce our security, but would allow politicians to claim credit for saving us from impending disaster.

This article here outlines the latest cry from the US Defense department.

Computer security is important.  It is not that measures should not be urgently taken to secure critical infrastructure.  It is not that the issue should not be taken seriously.  The problem is that the federal government, for all its power and all its good intentions, cannot have productive role, and honor a Rule of Law.

The fact is that computer security is a cat-and-mouse game, where security rests entirely on the weakest link in the chain.  The responsibility in every organization is to be aware of security and procatice good security.  It’s about discipline, best practices and vigilance.  No amount of federal “regulation” or “oversight” will make it any better.  In fact, such federal involvement would be counterproductive.

This is a little like the federal government deciding that someone might rob banks, and therefore should take control of, and regulate bank security.  Why don’t we do that?  It’s because we know that bank security requires the same sort of vigilance and discipline.  It is different at every bank, and the “bad guys” are always trying to keep one step ahead.  Adding a federal overseer would do nothing but make the job harder.

Computer security is a little like that, but with computers the technological security landscape is transformed every 6 months.  Reaction times to threats has to be in minutes (sometimes seconds!), not weeks or even days.  Any federal standards would be obsolete long before they were published.  No federal bureaucracy, no matter how well intentioned, could possibly keep up.

Our constitution is wise.  The federal government has limited, enumerated powers.  There is no mention of computer security.  This is the job of The People.  Let’s keep it that way.

 

BLOG: Entitlements, Promises, and Debt

Posted on by June 28, 2014

This article, from one of the public trustees of Social Security, outlines the challenges facing us with Social Security.  You can read the article by Charles Blahous, here.

You can also read the President’s budget for FY2013 at the Whitehouse website. (FY2013 budget pdf)  If you look in the summary tables (page 208), you will learn some facts about the federal budget that need serious discussion.

In 2011, the total revenues to the federal government were $2,303 billion.

The outlays in 2011 were $3,603 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,300 billion.

That means that of every dollar spent, roughly 60% came from tax revenue, and 40% went to debt. (Uncle Sam’s credit card)

On the spending side in 2011, roughly 60% of the spending went to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt.

The remaining 40% of the budget in 2011 covered everything else – defense, education, health, transportation, intelligence, law enforcement, customs, etc.

Yes, that’s right, everything else.  The military – all of it.  National parks.  Big Bird.  Unemployment compensation.  Pell grants.  Center for Disease Control.  NASA.  Coast Guard.  West Point.  Border patrol.  The FBI.  Popular programs and reviled programs.  Wasteful programs and worthwhile programs.

Everything.

What does this mean?  It means that in 2011, if we had mustered the political will to balance the US federal budget, we would have had to shut down ALL of the federal government, with the exception of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments, and that would have been just barelyenough.

When I hear people talk about our deficits, they usually talk about those things they don’t like.  They talk about “the wars”, and “waste”.  They talk about people living on welfare, both corporate and personal.  Everyone seems to have a program he’d like cut.

None of these ideas comes anywhere near close to what is required.  Balancing the budget in 2011 would have required shutting down almost everything.

It is like a household that made $600/month, and had a $600/month mortgage payment, and spent $400/month on everything else – all on a credit card.  Then, the family starts talking about trimming their food bill by buying less expensive meats, and expects to be praised for its frugality.

The federal budget situation in 2012 is slightly better, but not by much.  The trends are not promising.  The baby boomers are retiring, driving the costs of Medicare and Social Security dramatically higher, while the workforce to pay for it is shrinking.  Interest rates, currently at historic lows, mask an enormous debt service obligation. When those interest rates rise to normal levels, our interest costs will explode.

The federal debt is huge, and growing.  Just like a household, there is a limit to how much debt you can rack up before your creditors cut you off.  When creditors cut off a nation, the consequences are serious.  Think Greece.  Think Germany in 1925.  Think Argentina in the 1970s.  This may seem unthinkable, but it’s not.

It’s time to stop playing games and to speak the truth. None of the plans being discussed is even close to enough.  Even the so-called “draconian” budget proposed by Paul Ryan, and passed by the house this year is still not balanced by 2022.  We may not have that much time.

We have to discuss serious changes and serious sacrifices. We must abandon the fantasy that we can continue to dump our debts on someone else, on “the rich”, or on our children and grandchildren.

Of all the “lies” of this campaign season, this is the biggest one: that we can “protect” Social Security and Medicare, as it is, over the long term.  We cannot.  We are spending what we do not have.  The fact that we are doing this through government does not make it sustainable.  It just makes solutions more difficult.

This is not a partisan issue, or even an election issue.  It is a reality issue.  It’s a moral issue.  We are living on a credit card, and our absolute debt limit, immune to congressional protests, will be reached.  The financial rot will catch up with us.  The truth may be painful, but it cannot be avoided. The truth must be faced.

The sooner, the better.

(For those of you who want to see how our surpluses in the 1990s became deficits, see this article by the same author, who analyzes the numbers, and compares projections and tax changes.  Read ithere. )

 

National Security is Important

Posted on by June 28, 2014

The world remains a dangerous place, and without the brave and dedicated warriors in our military defending us, we could easily face a disastrous future.

As Winston Churchill has said:

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

In a world of drones, nuclear weapons, hostile ideologies and marginally rational regimes like North Korea and Iran, our national defense is as it should be – at the top of the list of our national priorities.

And in the hierarchy of military priorities, good intelligence is particularly vital.

This makes the disclosures of sensitive information by the Whitehouse all the more disturbing.  Our intelligence capabilities depend on our being trusted by those who help us.  If we blow their cover, like the Pakistani doctor now in prison, our allies are humiliated, our future allies evaporate, and our ability to collect intelligence is mortally wounded.

My point is not simply to criticize the president.  Mr. Obama might accuse George W Bush of grandstanding too, and other presidents may also have taken political advantage of the military.  No matter who does it, it should stop.

This video – http://www.youtube.com/v/X-Xfti7qtT0 – is powerful testimony and well worth watching.

No politician should use our military as a political prop. I believe that Americans should be deeply offended by the cavalier way that Mr. Obama has used the success of our military to political advantage by leaking details of our secret operations.  Our soldiers do not give their lives for political advantage, but to fulfill their oaths to our nation.

Let us commit ourselves as voters to making it clear that this kind of grandstanding is unacceptable, now and in the future.

May God bless our troops.

 

Local Elections are Important

Posted on by June 28, 2014

I just finished watching the local TV debate between the DFL and GOP candidates for state legislature from district 52.  That district includes Mendota Heights, Mendota, Lillydale, West St. Paul, South St Paul, Sunfish Lake, northern Eagan, and Inver Grove Heights.  There are two house seats in district 52, and one senate seat, so there are 6 candidates, 2 for each office.

Town Square TV puts on this debate every election, and it is a wonderful opportunity to see the candidates on camera answering questions about policy.

You can see the video here.

The presidential race seems to get all the attention, but the state legislature is where much of the real action is.  In Minnesota, the state legislature is the dominant force in health care, education, business climate, industrial regulation, and taxation.  If you want to make a difference in Minnesota, don’t waste your time on the presidency.  Win over state government.

Unfortunately, most voters don’t even know who these 6 men are, nor what seats they are seeking.  When I ran for Minnesota House in 2010, I had many, many voters ask me my opponent was. (Rick Hansen, the incumbent.)

No progress can be expected in improving state government, until the voters are more engaged.

At the end of the debate Rick Hansen said that he looks forward to “continuing the conversation” at the front doors of his constituents.  Having run against him in 2010, I know he means it.  These 6 candidates have already spent months going door to door, and will spend much of the next two months going door to door, introducing themselves to the voters, and asking for your support.

That’s how local politics works.  Door to door.  Person to person.

The purpose of my blog today is to encourage my readers to take full advantage of the candidates’ efforts, and to be nice to them.

It is important to recognize and honor the fact that all 6 of these candidates are serving you, whether by serving in office, or by running in opposition.  They are going door to door in a sincere effort to get the pulse of the voters. You can agree or disagree with them, but they want to know what you think.  The salary of a state legislator is $30,000/year.  They are not running to get rich.  They all do this because they believe in what they do, and that their policy prescriptions are the right ones.  They hope the voters will agree.

We get to weigh in on November 6th.

Be nice to them.  I know four of these gentlemen, and know for a fact that all 6 are very human.  They want your vote, but they also want your approval.  They want to believe that they are doing the right thing, and your opinion of them matters.  Ask them the tough questions.  Argue with them.  Disagree.  Don’t call them crooks or tell them how dishonest politicians are.  It’s not true.  These are honorable men.

Get more information on these 6 candidates here:

 

 

Be informed.

Vote on Nov 6th.