Election Time, Again

Well, it's that time o' year again when we folks in the United States of America go out 'n' decide what we want to complain about fer the next one er more years. The day we try to figger out who the smallest liar is 'n' whether er not we want to agree to vote ourselves another tax we can gripe about having to pay. The day we have to make an extra trip, carve a little extra time out of our busy schedules, 'n' put up with long lines full o' folks we normally wouldn't want to be within fifty feet of, just so we can put some marks on a sheet o' paper 'n' hope that enough other people're smart enough to put the same marks down so that our marks will actually count fer something. It's election day.

I was sharpening my tongue up fer a big ol' diatribe 'bout the sorry bunch o' folks we got to choose from this year. I was coming up with 'n' reviewing some, hopefully, witty 'n' scathing remarks 'bout the propositions they's trying to fool us into getting passed, er voting down. I was ready to lament the poor state o' the Arizona constitution, which they seem determined to keep hacking up, tacking on to, 'n' just generally rewriting ever' year. But then I read something last night that made me rethink the whole thing.

It was an article by Peter M. on his blog 'bout New England Folklore. Mr. M. said that, back in the early years o' this country, even 'for it was a country, folks used to vote in the fall fer their local officials even though the officials didn't take office until the next May. The day they took office in May was called "Election Day" 'n' was celebrated like a holiday. He says that, by 'bout the mid 1700's, the celebrations included such things as parades, parties, athletic events, 'n' even special cakes. The best part 'bout it was, it was a celebration 'bout the simple fact o' being able to elect folks. Nowadays, it seems like the only celebrating folks do 'bout elections is to celebrate that their side won er the other side lost.

So I read that. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit more. 'N' then I thought 'bout all the time that has passed between then 'n' nowadays 'n' all the changes that have happened in this country 'n' the ways folks viewed the whole voting 'n' election processes during all those 250 to 300 years. Then I thought 'bout the way so many folks seem to treat voting these days.

I thought 'bout the stories I've read 'bout how they used to close down the bars 'n' taverns 'n' the pubs 'n' the buying o' liquor on election days 'n' how you couldn't buy a drink 'til after the polls'd closed 'cause going out to cast your vote was a serious, sober responsibility. Do they even still do that these days? I'd be willing to bet real money that I could walk down to the local grocery store 'n' buy a six pack er a fifth o' something er other 'n' wouldn't no one bat an eye. I bet I could walk into any bar in town at any time today 'n' watch folks getting drunker 'n' drunker as they watched the election news. I'd even be willing to bet that there'd be at least one person, already well past the "legal" limit, who'd suddenly stand up 'n' say, "Shoot! I ain't even voted yet," 'fore running out to the polls.

I thought 'bout the stories o' folks who would get dressed up in their Sunday best to go vote 'cause voting was so important 'n' serious as church. Now days it seems like folks just show up in whatever they happen to have on er whatever they can grab 'fore they head out. In the last Presidential election, there was even a few folks in line who hadn't even bothered to change out o' their bed clothes. (Although, I guess I should give 'em credit fer being so eager 'n' dedicated to vote in that one that they was willing to get up at all that early in the morning.)

 I thought 'bout all those folks back 'fore there were cars who had to walk er ride miles 'n' miles to get to where they was supposed to go to vote 'cause it was so important to 'em. So many of 'em today seem to treat it more like some kind o' chore er drudge than the right er privilege that it is. They seem to approach it like it's some sort of odious task, like having to clean the cat box er jury duty er something. The biggest thing these days seem to be all the folks signing up to early vote er vote by mail so they don't have to take that extra time out o' their day to go do it. Personally, I get a big shot o' pride walking up to that desk 'n' taking pen in hand to mark all those little circles. I stand a little taller when I walk out o' the building with my little "I Voted" sticker tacked onto my shirt. I ain't never seen it as a chore ner an imposition. I've always seen it as a solemn something I'm more'n proud 'n' happy 'n' honored to do.

'N' I thought 'bout the idea of a bunch o' dour, humorless Puritans kicking their heels up 'n' having celebrations 'cause the folks they got to pick was stepping into office, instead of a bunch o' folks someone else had lumped 'em with. Now days it seems like so many folks're so busy voting 'gainst something er someone they cain't take no joy in their decisions.  Maybe that's why we ain't having no parades ner parties ner even special cakes to celebrate the fact that the folks we get to pick're stepping into office. Maybe too many folks these days're feeling like they's stuck with a bunch o' folks someone else lumped 'em with 'cause they felt like they couldn't vote fer who they really wanted lest the "wrong" person wound up winning.

So I thought 'bout all this stuff 'n' I decided I was going to try 'n' learn a lesson from the way they viewed elections back in the olden days. From here on out, I'm going to try 'n' keep my sharp tongue in my pocket on election day. I'm going to try 'n' keep my civil tongue in my mouth on the days I get the privilege o' going to the polls 'n' jotting down my two cents' worth in the form o' little dots on a page. I'm going to try 'n' show the day the respect it rightfully deserves 'n', who knows, maybe next year I'll even make a special cake on the day. 'Sides, I got all the other days o' the year to take my sharp tongue out o' my pocket 'n' use it.

(mis)Interpreting the State of the Union Address (Part VII)

The State of the Union given by President Oprama Weds. Jan. 27, 2010
What they said	What I heard
I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there’s a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.	I'm also telling Congress to quit all the pork-barreling. They've alread done a little bit o' that. But it ain't nearly enough. Some o' ya'll already post your pork-barreling online where folks can see it. Tonight, I'm telling all ya'll to do it on a single web site 'fore you go voting on 'em so all America can see how you're wasting their money.
Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don’t also reform how we work with one another.	Course, none o' that'll work if we cain't all learn how to get along better.
Now, I am not naive. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over 200 years. They are the very essence of our democracy.	Now, I ain't stupid. In spite o' what I may have said when I was campaigning fer office, I know my being 'lected weren't going to result in sudden peace, harmony, 'n' love. I knew both sides refused to get along with each other. Sometimes we just think dif'rently from each other. Some o' this dif'rent thinking, over such things as how much gov'ment should be doing fer folks, where our priorities lie, 'n' national security, have been going on fer more'n 200 years. But that's what Democracy's all 'bout.
But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is election day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent — a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.	What gives folks conniptions is the way we all act like we're constantly running fer office. We cain't always be out to just try 'n' embarass the other feller: sort o' the worst I can make you look, the better I seem by comparison. None o' ya'll should be getting in the other feller's way just 'cause you can. You shouldn't be holding up the confirmation o' my nominees just 'cause you don't like me. Washington folks may think they can tell just any ol' whoppers 'bout each other they want. But it's just that kind o' foolishness that's stopping us from doing anything like work. 'N' it sure ain't winning you no friends 'mong American citizens.
So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together. This week, I’ll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can’t wait.	So I ain't going to give up on trying to get ya'll to behave. I know it's another 'lection year, but ain't they all? Ya'll may have all caught campaign fever already, but we still got a job to do. I'll remind my fellow liberals that we're still number one, 'n' folks're still looking fer us to do something fer 'em. To the Republicans who say we still need their votes to get anything done 'round here, I say that means ya'll are on the hook too. Just saying "no" anytime we ask ya'll to try 'n' do something ain't what I call leadership. We were sent here to help Americans, not ourselves. So let's show 'em we actually can do what we're s'posed to be doing. This week I'm going to be giving the Republicans a good talking to. 'N' I'd like to give both sides a good dressing down ever' month. Bet ya'll are really looking forward to that.
Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who’s to blame for this, but I am not interested in relitigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and the world.	Throughout history, no issue has divided our country more than what constitutes our security 'n' the best way to achieve it. We seemed somewhat more unified 'bout all that after 9/11, but it ain't lasted. You can argue 'bout who to blame fer that, but we all know it was the Republicans, so that's all I got to say 'bout that. I know we all love what this country can do fer us, instead of us going out 'n' doing things fer ourselves. All of us want to see it defended. We just cain't agree on the best way to do that. So let's quit with the childish bullying each other. They ain't no choice between protection 'n' values. We can have both. Remember, withouth America, the whole world'ld fall apart.
That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008.	That's what I started doing last year. From day one, I've changed our focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. I've squandered more money on failed 'n' unnecessary homeland security measures 'n' claim we disrupted plots, real er imagined, that threatened American lives. We're making air travel even more frustrating fer reg'lar folks fer no good reason. Let's face it, the failed Christmas attack proved that, no matter how much we inconvenience folks, if someone is determined enough to try 'n' commit an act o' terrorism, they'll find a way. We've stopped admitting to torturing prisoners 'n' have strengthened our ties with other countries. Most important, at least fer my image, is that last year I personally killed more al-Qaida fighters 'n' senior leaders than Jr. did the year before. Yeah, I'm butch.
In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011 and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption and support the rights of all Afghans — men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.	I'm sending more troops to Afghanistan while claiming it's to help reduce our numbers o' troops there. If the Afghan gov'ment can do a better job o' running things in their country than what we're doing in ours, we'll give 'em a hearty pat on the back 'n' a big thumbs-up. There's other countries that're also increasing their troops in Afghanistan, 'n' they'll be having a get-together in London tomorrow to congratulate each other 'bout that. It ain't going to be an easy row to hoe, but I know I can get ever'body to agree with me eventually.
As we take the fight to al-Qaida, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.	As we move more troops into Afghanistan, we'll be leaving Iraq to fend fer itself. I said in my campaigning that I was going to hang 'em out to dry, 'n' that's just what I'm going to do. I'm pulling all our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of August. We'll still cheer the Iraqis on 'n' continue to tell 'em how we think they should be running their country 'n' what they's doing wrong. But make no mistake: I'm going to put an end to this thing, 'n' all our troops will be coming home. Ne'mind what I just said 'bout only combat troops leaving. Now I'm saying all troops. I just said combat troops the first time so we can leave some other kinds o' troops there if we need to without me making a liar out o' myself. 'N' once our troops do get home, we'll just turn 'em right back 'round 'n' pack 'em all off to Afghanistan. But they will come home first.
Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform — in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world — must know that they have our respect, our gratitude and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.	Tonight, all our folks in the military, whether they be in Iraq, Afghanistan, er anywhere else in the world, need to know they have our respect, gratitude, 'n' full support. (I knew that'd finally get you stony faced fellers from the Joint Chiefs o' Staff on your feet. Don't want to go looking bad in front o' your own folks, do you.) 'N' just as we need to give 'em what they have to have to fight, we need to give 'em what they have to have when they finally get home. That's why I ran us even deeper into debt fer the largest increase in veteran investments in decades. That's why we're finally going to get 'round to providing 'em with some decent healthcare fer a change. That's why I'm making both the Mrs. 'n' Mrs. Joe work on supporting military families.
Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people — the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April’s nuclear security summit, we will bring 44 nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.	'N' just 'cause we's already fighting two dif'rent wars, don't go thinking that's going to stop us from trying to keep scaring you 'bout the threat o' nuclear weapons. I'm just going to do the same things Kennedy 'n' Reagan done, even though they obv'ously didn't work, so you'll think I'm the same kind o' great leaders folks say they was. We're going to reduce our nuclear arsenal, while still being able to look tough enough that won't no one want to mess with us, by negotiating the farthest-reaching arms control treaty with Russia in almost two decades. Considering how little's been done 'bout that the past twenty years, I know it don't mean much, but it sure sounds impressive. 'N' in April we's going to have a nuclear security summit with 44 other nations. Our goal is going to be to secure all vulnerable nuclear material all 'round the world within four years so don't no terrorists get a hold of it. Course, they's going to be some countries with nuclear material that ain't going to be there. 'N', no matter how hard we try, if anyone wants to get their hands on nuclear materal bad enough, they'll find a way.
These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation and stronger sanctions — sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences.	That means we can gang up on those countries that disagree with us 'n' think they should be able to provide their citizens with cheap, clean nuclear energy. That's why North Korea is continuing to isolate themselves 'n' we are vigorously enforcing sanctions that only serve to hurt the common folks, since the leaders o' that country ain't suffering from 'em. 'N' if Iran don't toe the line, we's going to do the same to them.

(mis)Interpreting the State of the Union Address (Part VI)

The State of the Union given by President Oprama Weds. Jan. 27, 2010
What they said	What I heard
So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.	Let me start talking 'bout gov'ment spending by blaming the Republicans right up front. At the beginning o' Jr's. reign, we had an impressive sounding budget surpuls. When I took office last year, we had a one year deficit of an even more impressive sounding amount 'n' we was telling anyone who'd listen that is was just going to keep getting worse if you didn't elect us to fix things. Let's just get one thing straight right here. Problems o' this nature 'n' magnitude don't happen overnight, no matter how hard we try 'n' get folks to think otherwise. So the budget surpluses under ex-President Slick may have actually been because o' Reagonomics finally kicking in. 'N' the staggering deficits under former President Jr. may just've been ol' Slick's chickens finally coming home to roost. But we ain't going to admit to the possibility o' either o' those. We's gong to give credit to 'n' lay blame on the ones who was in office at the time these things finally came to fruition. What I will say, though, is that the recession took another impressive chunk out o' the budget. Just don't pay no attention to the fact that it goes against basic math that the amount I just mentioned is actually three times larger than the amount fer last year's deficit that I mentioned earlier. Anyway, that's the way things were when I finally got to the oval office.
Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.	I'd love to tell you that the first thing I did was to start bringing down the deficit. But I didn't. In fact, I added another chunk o' change to that rascal. But we'll blame the Republicans fer my extravagant spending habits, too.
I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.	I ain't gong to accept no blame fer it. But folks've been having a rough time 'n' have had to make some tough choices. We in the gov'ment should have to do the same. So tonight, I'm going to tell you some specific steps we can take to pay fer my spending spree last year. 'N' take note o' that. I said "specific" steps, not the broad kind o' generalizations folks're used to hearing from politicians.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.	Starting next year, I'm ready to freeze gov'ment spending fer three years. I ain't going to mess with spending to keep our country secure, ner Medicare, ner Medicaid, ner Social Security, neither. But ever'thing else is fair game. I'm going to do things the way folks should be doing 'em at home: pay fer what you actually need, not fer what you just want. 'N' don't go thinking I'm afraid to whup out my big ol' veto pen to get' er done, 'cause I will.
We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.	I'll continue going through the budget one line at a time to eliminate as many o' the Republicans' pet projects as I can. I've already identified a whole bunch fer next year. I'm also going to extend middle-class tax cuts. Again, I ain't going to do nothing to help lower-class families. I'm also going to use the deficit as an excuse to take away the tax cuts fer some o' the most hated groups in America: oil companies, investment fund managers, 'n' the rich. I ain't gong to impose no new taxes on those groups, even though it would make us a lot more money. Least, I won't impose none yet.
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.	Now, even afger we get my tab paid off, we still got to pay Jr's. bills. Even more important than that, Medicare, Medicaid, 'n' Social Security'll continue to cost us more 'n' more since we ain't going to try 'n' do nothing to lower healthcare costs. That's why I want to create yet another do-nothing commission that sounds good on paper but won't actually accomplish nothing. To make sure o' that, I'm going to put both Republicans 'n' Democrats on it to make sure it stays deadlocked on ev'ry issue. I'll also tell you that it's based on an idea by Republican Judd Gregg 'n' Democrat Kent Conrad to make it sound like I'm giving 'em credit, but really so we'll all no who to take it out on when it don't work out. Yesterday, the Senate refused to let me create this commission. So I'm going to go behind their back 'n' use my power of executive order to create it. 'N' when the Senate votes tomorrow ('n' what it is they's voting on I don't rightly recollect, but they's voting on something, I'm sure.) they better restore the pay-as-you-go laws that we had under Slick.
I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. But understand — if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing and jeopardize our recovery — all of which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.	I know they's a lot o' my fellow Democrats who ain't going to be happy 'bout not being able to continue their tax-'n'-spend ways. Well, they ain't got to start worrying just yet 'cause I ain't freezing nothing 'til next year. That'll give us plenty o' time to try 'n' figger some way to get out o' that promise. But know this: I'm going to keep talking like this is a real threat 'cause we got to do something to try 'n' fix things. The big carrot I'm offering is that I'll back off on this if we see some real changes. The big stick I'm threating with is that I might just carry through on it if we don't.
From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument — that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.	I 'spect a lot o' griping 'n' bad-mouthing from the other side. But they'd do that no matter what I say er do, so tough. I'm in charge now, 'n' we ain't going to keep doing things their way no more.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense.	Instead o' doing the same ol' nothing we been doing fer years in Washington, let's try to do something that'll actually help reg'lar folks fer a change, since that's what we're supposed to be here fer. Let's try using a little common sense fer once.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly and to give our people the government they deserve.	It's time to face the fact that, even though folks keep voting fer us 'n' re-electing us year after year, they really don't like us all that much. So we should all get together 'n' work on getting folks to take out their anger 'n' frustration on the lobbyists.
That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why — for the first time in history — my administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.	I came to Washington to try 'n' give folks a more effective gov'ment, whether they deserve it er not. That's why I'm letting folks know who all comes through the front door o' the White House. That's also why I ain't letting 'em hire lobbyists fer policymaking jobs er seats on some boards 'n' commissions.
But we can’t stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress. And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.	But we cain't let 'em off that easy. We need to make 'em tell us who all they've been trying to bribe 'n' influence. We also need to limit the amount of a bribe they can offer to candidates, 'specially now that I've already been elected 'n' it won't affect any o' my campaigns no more. Last week the Supreme Court really screwed things up by letting foreign interests try 'n' buy folks fer office. That ain't right. Only Americans should be allowed to buy American politicians. I'm even going to urge Congress to pass a bill that helps show the Supreme Court the errors o' their ways.

Smoke 'em if you can afford 'em

Here we go again. Big gov'ment is strapping on its size 13 moral-superiority clodhoppers 'n' is getting ready to start trompling all over the rights of a maligned minority 'cause it's the "right thing to do". That's right, they's raising the taxes on tobacco products. Again. When it takes effect on Wednesday, it will be the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever. The tax on a single pack o' smokes will go from 39 cents to just over a dollar. ($1.01, to be precise.) Taxes on cigars 'n' pipe 'n' smokeless tobacco will be increased, as well. The tax on chewing tobacco, fer example, will increase from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound.

Course, the claim it's all fer a good cause. Ain't that always the excuse they trot out when they decide to infringe on the rights o' some minority group er the other - that it's fer the "public good"? This time, they say they're going to use the tobacco taxes to help finance a major expansion o' health insurance fer children. While that may be a good use to put their extorted funds towards, in actual practice the idea is just plain stupid.

Now, I know you're prob'ly thinking, "Stupid? Ain't that rather a harsh word to use, Random?" Well, that's as maybe. But when it's the right word, it's the right word, 'n' I ain't going to shy away from using it. It is a stupid idea. Just look at the thing logically, which, obviously, the gov'ment ain't doing. They's claiming it's a win-win situation. First off, they's raising money to help fund child care. I admit, that's a good thing. Then, they claim that it will provide further incentive fer tobacco users to quit their bad habits, which will improve their health.

Let's just leave the health "benefits" o' less tobacco use aside fer right now 'n' concentrate on the
consequences o' diminished tobacco use among the general population. The first thought that springs to mind is: less tobacco use means less tobacco purchases which means a decrease in the revenues from tobacco taxes which means less money fer child health care. That's a lose-win, the children lose but the tobacco users "win" 'cause they're "healthier". If, on the other hand, there isn't a decrease in the number o' tobacco users, er if it even increases 'cause folks want to raise that money fer the kiddies, then it's a win-lose 'cause the tobacco users get singled out fer an unfairly disproportianate tax increase. On the third hand, we have the most likely scenario, which is a lose-lose fer ever'body. There will be a decrease in the number o' tobacco users, which will mean a decrease in the tax revenue fer the kiddies, which will mean another unfair tax increase on tobacco, which will mean fewer tobacco users, which will mean a decrease in the tax revenue fer the kiddies, which will mean another unfair tax increase on tobacco, which will mean fewer tobacco users... 'n' so on.

If they want to tax someone to raise money fer child health care, tax the deep pockets, not the folks already struggling with their finances. Make the petroleum companies pay fer it. I'd be willing to bet real money that more deaths in this country can be linked, either directly er indirectly, to the manufacturing 'n' use o' petroleum products than the manufacturing 'n' use o' tobacco. Er they could go after the drug companies. They're the ones who are, probably, most responsible fer the skyrocketing cost o' healthcare in this country, anyway. Make 'em put back some o' what they've taken. If they really want to make some money 'n' a tangible differ'nce at the same time, legalize the illegal drugs 'n' tax them.

Now there's a win-win. Maybe even a win-win-win er a win-win-win-win. They'd get more money fer the younguns that way than they could ever dream o' getting from tobacco users. If drugs was legal, they could regulate their manufacture 'n' quality, which means less deaths 'n' health problems from bad drugs. It would also pull the rug out from under the drug cartels 'n' the gangs running drugs in this country. That would mean less violence, less criminals, less folks in jail, safer neighborhoods, 'n' healthier environments fer the children o' drug families.

If they insist on placing the burden on the shoulders o' the tobacco user, then I say the tobacco user's in this country should stand up 'n' make themselves heard. I don't mean standing up in shouting 'bout how unfair it is er writing letters to congressfolks er any o' that, 'cause ain't no one going to listen to 'em if they's just using words. I mean they should speak with their wallets. What I'd like to see happen is fer ever' tobacco user in the country to quit buying tobacco products fer at least six months. Turn off that tax tap 'n' see what the gov'ment does when the tobacco users say, "No, you cain't have my money!" Maybe then they'll see the light 'n' actually try something intelligent fer a change. I know, asking the gov'ment to do something intelligent is like asking a chicken to lay hard boiled eggs. I can still dream, though. Least, until they find a way to tax that, too.