A Letter To Congress From A Taxpayer

Dear Congressional Representative,

I am writing you to express my concerns about the budget sequester scheduled to go into effect on March 1, 2013 – less than two weeks from now – unless you do something to stop it.

I am a federal employee.  I work for the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration as a federal project officer.  I believe in the mission of our Department, namely protecting and advancing the welfare of wage earners in our great nation.  Through my work at the Employment and Training Administration, I manage a portfolio of federal grants totaling $75 Million in tax payer dollars and H-1B visa application fees.  Our grantees, including technical colleges, state and local units of government, and industry associations, use these funds to implement occupational skills training programs vital to the growth of our economy.  My responsibilities as a federal project officer include the provision of regulatory compliance oversight and technical assistance for the grant projects to which I’m assigned.  This means I ensure through regular and frequent monitoring and interaction with these grantee organizations that the grant funds are spent appropriately and planned outcomes are achieved.

The compliance monitoring and technical assistance provided by federal employees like me ensures that our tax dollars are spent wisely and judiciously to achieve the best return on the investment for tax payers and employers.  You may have recently heard about a federal grant program in Michigan that wasted hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars with little to no outcomes.  Effective grant monitoring and technical assistance provision provided by skilled federal project officers can prevent this waste and abuse from occurring.  Our compliance activities include the recovery of misspent funds through the implementation of administrative and legal proceedings.  These important grant management functions will not happen effectively under a sequestration resulting in up to 22 working days lost through furlough.

My family will be significantly and detrimentally impacted by the loss of up to 22 days of wage income between March 1 and September 30, 2013.  As the sole wage earner in my house, I do not have enough money in my savings account to cover the loss of income.  This will mean a significant cut back in our family budget, which in turn results in us spending less in our community for the consumer goods and services that we normally purchase.  I will be looking for additional employment opportunities to attempt to recover some of the lost wage income resulting from my furlough days.  Hopefully, we will be able to make it through these uncertain times through sensible reductions in spending and additional income realized through a second part-time job.  Why can’t Congress implement the same mix of spending cuts and revenue creation my family will be forced to as a result of the country’s current budget imbalance?

I am extremely disappointed and frustrated with the impasse in Congress concerning the budget deficit and the sequestration.  The sequestration was designed as a doomsday device to motivate Congress to implement a sensible plan to deal with the national debt and budget deficit.  It was never meant to be implemented!  Now, we are talking about letting it happen because, as some members of Congress have said, it won’t be that bad.  As your constituent, I couldn't disagree more.  It will be very bad for me and my family.  Like most middle-class families, we are not financially secure enough to withstand the impact of a loss of over a month’s wage income without significant difficulties.  Maybe it won’t have much impact on individuals who gross more than six figures in annual earnings and have the benefit of multigenerational wealth and personal safety nets, but that’s not my family.  We will have to spend less and earn more to cover our fixed monthly expenses that can’t be cut.  As many members of Congress want to compare the national budget to a family budget, why can’t Congress act to raise more revenues to deal with the current crisis?  That’s how my family will be dealing with your inaction.

As your constituent, I am demanding that you work with your colleagues in Congress to ensure that my family is not financially impacted by the sequestration.  You must act to pass legislation that includes a sensible combination of spending reductions and revenue creation to prevent the implementation of the sequestration.  Failure to do so will financially devastate my family and other middle-class families around the country.  This is unacceptable.

I am proud to serve my country as a federal employee and I am not a faceless bureaucrat – I’m your constituent, a tax payer, and a citizen.

Sincerely,

Darren E. Kroenke

Idle No More?

I've thought about this blog post for some time now.  What I'm about to present for your consideration will be considered controversial to most and blasphemous to many.  Before you read any further, understand that these are my opinions.  You are entitled to your own and have your own space to express them.  I'm not interested in arguments to the contrary and I respect those who feel very differently than I do about these issues.  So, that being said - continue reading at your own risk of righteous anger.  Just remember, I warned you.

Idle No More!  That's what my Indigenous brothers and sisters from all over the world are calling a movement that started among the First Nations Peoples of Canada.  The movement was initiated as a protest against actions taken by the Canadian Parliament that threaten the environment and the sovereignty of the First Nations in Canada and those communities on or near bordering waters and lands.

Chief Theresa Spence of the Attawapiskat First Nation has become a central figure, the visible face, of this protest movement.  Her month long hunger strike within sight of the seat of Canadian government is a widely visible act of civil disobedience in the face of oppression.  Her resolve and her courage remind many of the same courage and resolve of individuals like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Indigenous Peoples from all over North America have risen up in solidarity with Chief Spence in  round dance flash mobs in public places.  These demonstrations of unity and support have provided a voice to other oppressed and marginalized communities.  They are an opportunity for the world to see that Indigenous People are alive, angry, and demanding of respect.  Many people have attended these events and will continue to for days and possibly months to come.

Chief Spence demanded a meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister and then learning that some grievances needed the support of the British Crown, a meeting with the Canadian Governor General.  She was provided that opportunity on Friday, January 11.  Sadly, she walked out of the meeting with the Governor General, stating she didn't feel the honor and respect she thought the meeting deserved.  Her hunger strike continues.

Some First Nations leaders have begun to question the meaning of Chief Spence's continued hunger strike.  Chief Darren Bonaparte of the Akwesasne Mohawk community has asked her publicly to end her hunger strike.  He feels she has brought attention to issues long left unaddressed by the Canadian government and that her life is of more value now than ever to her family and her People.  Furthermore, with rates of suicide so high among Indigenous Peoples the world over, why take your own life in this regard through continued starvation?  He presents a good question.  One that should be answered.

Like Chief Bonaparte, I too question the continued wisdom of Chief Spence's hunger strike.  I also question the intended long term impact of the multitude of flash mobs and other public acts of solidarity that continue to populate my Facebook wall.  What is the public policy agenda?  What concrete actions do participants wish Parliament, or in my case, Congress to take?  Where are the legislative proposals?

I believe unless the Idle No More movement begins to present a policy agenda articulated clearly and repeatedly by a strong and visible leader (like Chief Spence) or council of leaders, it is doomed to fade into oblivion in the same fashion as the Occupy Movement did.  Lacking leadership and a concrete set of policies presented to elected officials, Occupy Wall Street and the myriad of related Occupy encampments eventually lost the public forum and the momentum that inspired its active participants.

There are legitimate public policy issues that could be addressed by this movement.  Obviously, Canadian First Nations have their fair share.  However, here in the United States, Congress has failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.  Tribal provisions in the Senate version of the reauthorization bill would have addressed a pernicious attack on tribal sovereignty in this country - the inability of tribal judiciaries to assert jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit acts of domestic violence against tribal members on reservation.

Many domestic violence advocates are speaking up concerning this issue.  The opportunity for tribal people to demand Congressional action is now.  There is real potential to a concerted effort on the part of all the individuals who have gone to the local shopping mall to hold up an Idle No More sign or blast a round dance song on their hand drum to get involved in this discussion.

Right here in Wisconsin, there is a movement to oppose the establishment of an open pit taconite mine which threatens the Lake Superior watershed and the traditional lands and waters of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.  Again, if you are willing to be part of the protest in solidarity with our First Nations brothers and sisters, you should be aware and engaged with the debate soon to be held in the Wisconsin Assembly.

These are just a few examples of real public policy issues affecting tribal communities in the United States.  I'm sure anyone reading this from across North America, not to mention other Indigenous communities worldwide, can identify substantive issues needing to be addressed in your community.  What are those issues and how are they articulated in the Idle No More movement?

I hear Indian people talk about sovereignty and environmental issues all the time, both without substance and without knowledge of legitimate legislative opportunities to address either.  As bold as I am, I'm tempted to walk up to the next Idle No More gathering and ask the first few random Skins I see, "What are you here for?"  "What is Idle No More about?"  "What lasting impact will this have on the health and welfare of your tribal community or others across the planet?"

By now you're probably pissed.  Honestly, I don't blame you.  You should be pissed.  But, deep within you should be burning a desire to prove me wrong.  Prove to yourself and to the people who came before you and those who will come after you that Idle No More isn't just another fad destined to pass soon into memory.

Remember Alcatraz?

It's Common Sense, Stupid!

It's time for the rest of us to speak up about the Second Amendment as we experience it.  There are gun owners in this country, including myself, who are NOT convinced the government is coming to take away our guns.

Before you accuse me of being one of those liberal, freedom hating, big government socialists, know that I am a life member of the National Rifle Association.  I attended more gun shows before I was twelve than most of you have probably been to in your life.  My father was a licensed gun dealer and antique firearm collector.  I grew up in a home where hunting and firearm ownership were revered and respected.  I understood that firearms were a way of life for our family.  They put food on the table, money in our pockets, and protected us from individuals who might attempt to take what little we had away from us through theft or malice.  However, in this house where guns leaned in every corner, hung above the front door, and occupied every closet not a single assault weapon existed.

On Tuesday, Vice President Biden will present a set of legislative proposals to Congress and the American people for consideration.  A ban on the manufacturing, sale, and ownership of assault weapons SHOULD be part of these proposals.  There is no place in a responsible gun owner's home for these kind of weapons.  They were designed for one purpose - taking human lives - as many as possible, as quickly as possible.

It's my hope the responsible gun owners in this country will stand up and speak with a collective voice to drown out the insanity of the lunatics (yes, lunatics) currently speaking loudest in this national debate.  There is a platform for responsible gun ownership that includes a ban on assault weapons.  The time is now and the leadership of the National Rifle Association needs to realize it.

Are You Angry?

Today the guardian of our Republic, America's favorite son, the Patriot extraordinaire Donald Trump released the following video message for President Obama.



Apparently, there is a horde of angry Americans out there who detest President Obama's lack of transparency.  This über secretive agenda includes concealing his university applications, transcripts, and passport applications from every American that strongly desires, like Donald, the ability to inspect these documents.  Why? you might ask.  Why not? I for one cannot think of any other President whose college transcripts I haven't inspected to my satisfaction.  Really?  I started using the following Twitter hash tag for just these sort of examples of foolishness - #WTFAmerica

If you're angry about this alleged lack of transparency and the complete void of information about our President that it creates, well, frankly I don't know what to say to you.  I could offer the following proposition instead.  Perhaps the Donald could look up each and every member of Congress who doesn't have a college degree and offer to pay for their schooling.

The Survey Says...

Well, we have completed the debate cycle for the 2012 presidential election.  We've heard about domestic policy, foreign policy and everything in between.  So what does the score card look like after three head to head meetings of the candidates for our next President of these United States?  Survey says...Obama 2 - Romney 1.  Romney had Obama on the ropes in round one.  Obama held his own and edged out Romney in round two.  Obama got the KO in round three.  See CNN's poll results for each debate.

Most Americans are neither well informed nor interested in foreign policy discussions, making the final debate not as popular as the other two.  Plus, the debate went head to head with Monday Night Football and game seven of the National League Championship series.  If you didn't watch the last debate you missed something special.  Romney said he had some "zingers" planned for the first round.  We heard about "trickle down government" and the "economy tax" on the middle class  Well, Obama had some hay makers in store for us in round three.  We got gems like "The 1980's are calling and they want their foreign policy back" and "In 1917 we had more horses and bayonets too!".

Beyond the war of words, let's get down to the substance.  President Obama has been the Commander-In-Chief for the past four years.  During his first term the war in Iraq was brought to conclusion, Osama bin Laden was assassinated, and the draw down of troops in Afghanistan has begun.  When Obama first ran for the Office of the Presidency recognizing his weaknesses in the foreign policy arena, he chose Joe Biden as his running mate.  Biden's experience in foreign policy includes his long tenure as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  This was and continues to be an asset to the Obama administration.  By comparison, Governor Romney with no foreign policy experience chose a running mate with an equally insufficient foreign policy resume.

When given the opportunity to detail his foreign policy platform Romney spent half of the time agreeing with the actions and policies implemented by the Obama administration and the other half telling us about his experience as Governor of Massachusetts with a touch of psycho-babble added in (witness the "I love teachers" diatribe).  Does serving as the governor of a small New England state that shares no borders with any other country really qualify as foreign policy experience?  Hell, you can't even see Russia from there!  Jesse Ventura was once the governor of Minnesota, which shares a border with Canada.  Presidential?  Probably not.

Americans need to develop a deeper comprehension concerning the position our nation occupies in the community of nations and among many actors on the international stage in the 21st century   We do not wield the hegemony we did in the decades following the Second World War.  The bi-polar detente that existed during the Cold War no longer defines the background of our relationships with other countries.  The rise of new world powers such as India and China, the actions of rogue nation states and their ruling elite, and the impact of zealous ideologies espoused by terrorist organizations have forever changed the manner in which we engage other nations.  These realities require a foreign policy that combines measured diplomacy with national security.  We will learn that the most powerful military in the world is no match for the convictions of extremists who do not measure their victory in terms of regime change or occupying forces.

So, it's up to you now to vote.  Early voting and absentee voting began this week.  To find out more information about early voting and absentee ballots please visit www.canivote.org  This is a much better option for many people than waiting in line on election day.  Do NOT get discouraged.  Let your voice be heard.  GO VOTE!

Who Will Win?

This post is a little less timely than I would have liked, but I took a rest to visit with some friends during last night's debate and had to put my DVR to good use.  Fortunately, my wife has left some space on the DVR for just this purpose.  I also want to thank all the people who read my random rants that reminded me I was shirking my responsibilities to keep the verbal tirade coming.  Thank you for your thoughts and your comments.  Whether you agree with me or not, I appreciate your interest.

Clash Of The Titans

I read a few articles in the local paper and saw some of the post debate coverage in social media and on television, so I'm not going to rehash those things.  I'm not even going to select and expound upon which candidate I think came out the winner from last night's debate.  Instead, I would challenge you to think about the questions that were asked by the audience and decide which of them was of particular interest to you.

Of course there were some good topical areas covered including: the economy, tax policy, the national deficit, healthcare, equal pay for equal work, immigration policy, national security, assault weapons bans, education, and foreign trade.  I'm pretty passionate about all these things and I feel like many of these issues are close to me personally and professionally.  My wife is a law student who is interested in immigration and labor law.  I'm a government employee that serves an agency mission which focuses on worker training, workplace safety, and the security of the employed and the unemployed.

Despite all the public policy issues that were addressed last night and my or your position on those issues, the question I found most revealing about who will win this election was the last one asked.  The last audience member to address the candidates asked, and I'm paraphrasing, what the candidates' thought the biggest misconception that the public has of each of them.

Governor Romney answered first and responded that he cares about 100% of the American people, his passion comes from his belief in the same God we all believe in, and he wants to use his experience in the private sector to bring America back to prosperity.  President Obama responded that he doesn't believe that big government can solve all the problems that exist, he believes in the free enterprise model tempered by an equity standard and that Americans have a serious choice in this election to between two different perspectives on social issues.  The biggest difference in these answers is the level of integrity that each candidate has.

President Obama has a record of four years in the White House that Governor Romney has attempted to utilize to discredit the President and present himself as a better option for the Executive Office.  The reality is, Mr. Romney has a record too which he seems very adverse to being held accountable to.  We have policy statements made by Governor Romney throughout the Republican primary and campaign speeches made by the Romney-Ryan camp in the last several months.  This extant record presents a picture of a man who struggles with his own integrity when has been pressed to defend these positions.  Much of his debate rhetoric contradicts where he stood a few weeks ago.

The integrity issue is brought center stage by the comments of the candidate who when behind closed doors espouses a position of divisiveness the likes of which are simply un-presidential. Can Governor Romney really walk back the statements he made about the 47% of Americans who, as he so eloquently stated, "consider themselves victims, rely on government for their basic needs and who refuse to take personal responsibility for themselves."?  I think not.  A truer picture of the man was presented behind those doors than what we have seen in these debates so far.  His answer to that final question is either a blatant lie or an attempt to deceive the American public.

And the Winner Is...Part II

This evening the Nation had its first and only opportunity to see Vice President Joe Biden go head to head with Congressman Paul Ryan.  This event was certainly a departure from last week's Presidential debate.  Many individuals, myself included, felt Governor Romney took full advantage of the opportunity afforded the challenger in these debates and walked away a "winner".  Tonight was different.  Vice President Biden didn't allow Paul Ryan to play the cards Governor Romney did.  Basically, the incumbent candidate did not spend the entire evening defending four years of public record while the challenger sold a platform of cherry picked  policy positions that poll well with the public, carefully selected from legislation passed during the last four years.  This game plan worked very well for Romney last week.  He was successful at keeping President Obama on the defensive while he presented a revised policy platform that benefited from the flexibility afforded the challenger.  This flexibility included an adoption of the positions most popular with the electorate as "part of my plan" with no additional details.  Brilliant!  We learned Romney now supports everything the majority of Americans like, is against the things that happened in the last four years that America didn't like, and the rest of the details - well that can wait.  You'll find that out once Romney becomes President.

Tonight was different.  Every time Ryan tried to run last week's game plan, Biden ran his defense and went immediately onto the offense.  Ryan was challenged by both the moderator - who was exceptional I may add - and by Biden's commitment to doubling down on the facts.  Every vague policy statement from Congressman Ryan was tempered by the challenge to present details. Congressman Ryan was big on the usual platitudes - American values, peace through strength, and a commitment to prosperity for all.  Ryan and Romney constantly describe the America they want to create, but provide little to no detail on how we are going to get there.  The reality is, the domestic conditions that we currently face in this country will not change on day one, week one, or month one of a new administration.  Without providing the details of "the plan" it's nice of Romney and Ryan to provide their aspirations but that's not a public policy platform - it's a description of an objective without a strategy to get there.

So, yeah - Biden evened the score this evening.  We'll wait to see what happens next week when the Presidential candidates debate foreign policy.  Based on Romney's failed attempts this summer to demonstrate competency on the international stage, I'm pretty confident we'll see what true leadership looks like.